American pilots charged in Amazon jetliner crash

[Guy Elden Jr]

This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on the evidence
I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me like the Brazilian
air traffic control system itself is solely to blame for this accident.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html

--
Guy

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on the evidence
> I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me like the Brazilian
> air traffic control system itself is solely to blame for this accident.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
>
> --
> Guy
>

If these guys go back to Brazil they are idiots. It's pretty obvious they
are being scapegoated and there is no reason to believe they would receive a
fair trial. I have to wonder though if the folks in charge down there
really don't want or expect them to stand trial. Seeing how they have been
kept in county since September 29th and they let them leave AFTER they
formally charge them.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>If these guys go back to Brazil they are idiots. It's pretty obvious they
>are being scapegoated and there is no reason to believe they would receive a
>fair trial. I have to wonder though if the folks in charge down there
>really don't want or expect them to stand trial. Seeing how they have been
>kept in county since September 29th and they let them leave AFTER they
>formally charge them.

The one 'good' thing is that this is an international incident.
If it had been Brazilian pilots on the bizjet, they'd probably be
in jail right now.

One thing I still haven't heard a good answer for is the status of
the transponders and TCAS systems on both aircraft. The early
press had lots of speculation that the bizjet turned off their
transponder, but I haven't heard any credible reports of that.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> I don't know how things work in Brazil.
> It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the accident
> cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and subjecting them
> to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
> defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as well.
>
> One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong emphasis
> on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for the
> argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not more so.
>
> I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This would even
> seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!

Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
U.S. citizens in the U.S..

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on the evidence
> > I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me like the Brazilian
> > air traffic control system itself is solely to blame for this accident.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
> >
> > --
> > Guy
> >
>
> If these guys go back to Brazil they are idiots. It's pretty obvious they
> are being scapegoated and there is no reason to believe they would receive a
> fair trial.


Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
U.S. citizens in the U.S..

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says... (again)
>
> >
> >Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
> >U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
> >http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
> >U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
> >U.S. citizens in the U.S..
> >
>
>
> Posting it repeatedly does not really enhance the pertinence of this analogy.

No, but it does show how screwed up the deja server is today.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> I think the US pilots were given a one-way exit visa, and are not expected
> to return.

Probably not expected to return by us but it sounds like Brazil expects
them to return...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
"Joseph Lepore, 42, of Bay Shore, and Jan Paladino, 34, Westhampton
Beach, were questioned by police for six hours and then were allowed to
pick up their passports and leave the country, but they are required to
return for their trial."

However, that doesn't mean they are safe in the U.S. They could still
be forced to return to Brazil. Depends highly on politics.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> I don't know how things work in Brazil.
> It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the accident
> cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and subjecting them
> to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
> defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as well.
>
> One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong emphasis
> on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for the
> argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not more so.
>
> I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This would even
> seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!

Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
U.S. citizens in the U.S..

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Greg Farris wrote:
> > I don't know how things work in Brazil.
> > It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the accident
> > cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and subjecting them
> > to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
> > defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as well.
> >
> > One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong emphasis
> > on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for the
> > argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not more so.
> >
> > I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This would even
> > seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!
>
> Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
> U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
> U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
> U.S. citizens in the U.S..
>
> -Robert


Well, apparently there is no connection between the message "Server
error, message not possed, try again in 30 seconds" and the message
actually posting. ;(

-Robert

[[email protected]]

I hate it when that happens !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > Greg Farris wrote:
> > > I don't know how things work in Brazil.
> > > It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the accident
> > > cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and subjecting them
> > > to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
> > > defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as well.
> > >
> > > One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong emphasis
> > > on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for the
> > > argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not more so.
> > >
> > > I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This would even
> > > seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!
> >
> > Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
> > U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
> > U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
> > U.S. citizens in the U.S..
> >
> > -Robert
>
>
> Well, apparently there is no connection between the message "Server
> error, message not possed, try again in 30 seconds" and the message
> actually posting. ;(
>
> -Robert

[[email protected]]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
> This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on the evidence
> I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me like the Brazilian
> air traffic control system itself is solely to blame for this accident.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
>
> --
> Guy

Anyone that's been following the story is fairly clued in to what's
going on. I can't imagine they'll return, and I think our gov't will
have a big problem on their hands if they try to force these guys back
down there - I highly doubt they will based on what I've seen.

[Greg Farris]

I don't know how things work in Brazil.
It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the accident
cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and subjecting them
to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as well.

One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong emphasis
on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for the
argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not more so.

I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This would even
seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!

GF

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> Guy Elden Jr wrote:

> Anyone that's been following the story is fairly clued in to what's
> going on. I can't imagine they'll return, and I think our gov't will
> have a big problem on their hands if they try to force these guys back
> down there - I highly doubt they will based on what I've seen.

Americans always get ****ed off when the U.S. deports U.S. citizens to
stand trail in foreign countries. Why do you think this will be
different?

-Robert

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says... (again)

>
>Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
>U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
>U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
>U.S. citizens in the U.S..
>


Posting it repeatedly does not really enhance the pertinence of this analogy.

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>
>Greg Farris wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> says... (again)
>>
>> >
>> >Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
>> >U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
>> >U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
>> >U.S. citizens in the U.S..
>> >
>>
>>
>> Posting it repeatedly does not really enhance the pertinence of this
analogy.
>
>No, but it does show how screwed up the deja server is today.
>


Alright - sorry!

I think the US pilots were given a one-way exit visa, and are not expected
to return.

GF

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...

>
>Americans always get ****ed off when the U.S. deports U.S. citizens to
>stand trail in foreign countries. Why do you think this will be
>different?


With all due respect, you're being a bit hard-headed about it.
You keep responding with generalities about extradition and US marshals
and all that jazz, when what people here are trying to say to you is that
it is, in fact, the specifics of this case that make it appear likely they
will not be going back there. Who knows, we may be wrong - but that's what
it looks like.

I believe had the Brazilian authorities felt they really had evidence of
criminal wrongdoing or negligence, they would not have released the
Americans. The fact that they did so, would seem to indicate that their
implication in the criminal investigation is more of a formality -
"because that's the way the system works". Others could be named as well -
the air traffic controllers on duty, even the equipment manufacturers.
Many of the issues that would be addressed through lawsuits in civil
courts in the US are often addressed in the criminal process in other
countries. Any or all of those named could be found not responsible, or
assigned different levels of responsibility, only the most direct of which
would lead to criminal sanctions.

I believe it's most likely the pilots will be tried in absentia, and we'll
see how much, if any responsibilty is assigned to their actions. By giving
them back their passports, the Brazilians are aware they face a comlicated
extradition process of they want to see them back there, and that's a
diplomatic issue thy would probably prefer to avoid. We'll see how it goes
- but in my opinion they would not have put themselves in that position
if they had a strong presumption of direct responsibility on behalf of the
American pilots.

GF

[Matt Whiting]

Greg Farris wrote:

> I think the US pilots were given a one-way exit visa, and are not expected
> to return.

I also thought it funny that they held them this long with no charges
and then charged them and returned their passports. Is this the
Brazilian way to say "we had to charge you, but really don't want to try
you so get outta here?"

Matt

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message oups.com...
:
: Guy Elden Jr wrote:
: > This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on the evidence
: > I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me like the Brazilian
: > air traffic control system itself is solely to blame for this accident.
: >
: > http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
: >
: > --
: > Guy
:
: Anyone that's been following the story is fairly clued in to what's
: going on. I can't imagine they'll return, and I think our gov't will
: have a big problem on their hands if they try to force these guys back
: down there - I highly doubt they will based on what I've seen.
:

So they will always have this hanging over them. They should go down there and fight. If Brazil wants to play in the
world market they need to acknowledge their short comings and get them fixed. The ATC system down there is to blame for
this crash, and ATC is run by their military, so it will be real interesting to see if they ever admit guilt...

[Mxsmanic]

Blueskies writes:

> So they will always have this hanging over them. They should go
> down there and fight.

Which countries have you visited?

> If Brazil wants to play in the world market they need to acknowledge
> their short comings and get them fixed. The ATC system down there is to blame for
> this crash, and ATC is run by their military, so it will be real
> interesting to see if they ever admit guilt...

Their ATC system affects only flights in their airspace. The rest of
the world doesn't care. If it's an ATC problem and they don't fix it,
people might become more reluctant to travel by air in Brazil, but
that's it. And even that is unlikely to happen, because most people
don't follow or care about such things, and air travel is the only way
to get to a lot of places in Brazil (and the only way to get to many
more places in any reasonable time).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dan[_1_]]

Blueskies wrote:

> ....They should go down there and fight. ...

And risk rotting in a Brazillian prison for 12 years away from their
familes should they lose? Not worth it...

--Dan

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>> ....They should go down there and fight. ...
>
> And risk rotting in a Brazillian prison for 12 years away from their
> familes should they lose? Not worth it...

I think that's what Brazil is counting on; if they don't return, they
(Brazil) can hold a sham trial in absentia and find them guilty of
everything, thus covering their own asses which are presently hanging out in
the wind.

http://joesharkeyat.blogspot.com/2006/12/pilots-out-of-brazil-after-bizarre-and.html
(Joe Sharkey was the journalist aboard the Legacy jet)


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

[Blueskies]

"Dan" > wrote in message oups.com...
:
: Blueskies wrote:
:
: > ....They should go down there and fight. ...
:
: And risk rotting in a Brazillian prison for 12 years away from their
: familes should they lose? Not worth it...
:
: --Dan
:

That is your opinion...if they let this hang out there, it could snag them at any time, pretty much anywhere. This
should definitely be something that the state dept should be heavily involved in, but not a word from them as far as I
know.

[john smith]

What I want to know is, why aren't the press riding in airliners
overflying the area of interest and reporting on whether or not the
crews are able to communicate and be seen on radar? Instead, they are
only reporting what the controllers and the Brazilian functionaries are
telling them about conditions in the area.

[Blueskies]

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
: What I want to know is, why aren't the press riding in airliners
: overflying the area of interest and reporting on whether or not the
: crews are able to communicate and be seen on radar? Instead, they are
: only reporting what the controllers and the Brazilian functionaries are
: telling them about conditions in the area.



From what I undersand there is very liitle freedom of the press in Brazil...

[Jim Macklin]

It gets worse than that. The gun laws in the USA, the Brady
Instant Check, the Lautenberg amendments, the Form 4473 all
check and ask if you are a "fugitive from justice" and if
those pilots do not go back to Brazil and get cleared, they
will be criminals here if the presently own, possess or buy
any firearms.




--
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.


"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
|
| > wrote in message
oups.com...
| :
| : Guy Elden Jr wrote:
| : > This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on
the evidence
| : > I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me
like the Brazilian
| : > air traffic control system itself is solely to blame
for this accident.
| : >
| : >
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
| : >
| : > --
| : > Guy
| :
| : Anyone that's been following the story is fairly clued
in to what's
| : going on. I can't imagine they'll return, and I think
our gov't will
| : have a big problem on their hands if they try to force
these guys back
| : down there - I highly doubt they will based on what I've
seen.
| :
|
| So they will always have this hanging over them. They
should go down there and fight. If Brazil wants to play in
the
| world market they need to acknowledge their short comings
and get them fixed. The ATC system down there is to blame
for
| this crash, and ATC is run by their military, so it will
be real interesting to see if they ever admit guilt...
|
|

[Aluckyguess]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on the evidence
>> I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me like the Brazilian
>> air traffic control system itself is solely to blame for this accident.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
>>
>> --
>> Guy
>>
>
> If these guys go back to Brazil they are idiots. It's pretty obvious they
> are being scapegoated and there is no reason to believe they would receive
> a fair trial. I have to wonder though if the folks in charge down there
> really don't want or expect them to stand trial. Seeing how they have been
> kept in county since September 29th and they let them leave AFTER they
> formally charge them.
I was thinking the same thing.
>

[Jim Macklin]

And a felon in another county is still considered a felon in
the USA, say good bye to your civil rights.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Dan" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >
| > Blueskies wrote:
| >
| >> ....They should go down there and fight. ...
| >
| > And risk rotting in a Brazillian prison for 12 years
away from their
| > familes should they lose? Not worth it...
|
| I think that's what Brazil is counting on; if they don't
return, they
| (Brazil) can hold a sham trial in absentia and find them
guilty of
| everything, thus covering their own asses which are
presently hanging out in
| the wind.
|
|
http://joesharkeyat.blogspot.com/2006/12/pilots-out-of-brazil-after-bizarre-and.html
| (Joe Sharkey was the journalist aboard the Legacy jet)
|
|
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO (MTJ)
|
|

[RomeoMike]

Not sure what your source for that statement is. I lived there at one
time. The press can print what it wants. Of course, as in the USA, if
the government is feeding the information, it may have its own slant,
but nothing prevents the press from investigating and reporting.

Blueskies wrote:

>
> From what I undersand there is very liitle freedom of the press in Brazil...
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> What I want to know is, why aren't the press riding in airliners
> overflying the area of interest and reporting on whether or not the
> crews are able to communicate and be seen on radar?

They would not be able to determine that simply by riding on an
airliner.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[601XL Builder]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Greg Farris wrote:
>> I don't know how things work in Brazil.
>> It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the accident
>> cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and subjecting them
>> to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
>> defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as well.
>>
>> One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong emphasis
>> on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for the
>> argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not more so.
>>
>> I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This would even
>> seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!
>
> Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
> U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
> U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
> U.S. citizens in the U.S..
>
> -Robert
>

Yes but a US court and the Secretary of State will decide in the bounty
hunter case if he is extradited. The same would happen in the case of
the pilots.

[601XL Builder]

Blueskies wrote:

>
> From what I undersand there is very liitle freedom of the press in Brazil...
>
>

And yet you want these pilots to go back and stand trial. That certainly
adds up.

[601XL Builder]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> And a felon in another county is still considered a felon in
> the USA, say good bye to your civil rights.
>
>
>

Not if a US Federal judge and the Sec State decide not to extradite them.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "BS" == Blueskies > writes:
BS> This should
BS> definitely be something that the state dept should be heavily
BS> involved in, but not a word from them as far as I know.

"State" should be doing all kinds of things in many problem areas of
the world...but look at their record the last 6 years. Why should
their leadership suddenly become competent on this issue?

--
I sent the club a wire stating, Please accept my resignation. I don't
want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.
Groucho Marx

[john smith]

Read Mr Sharkey's blog mentioned in the previous link. State is doing
nothing to aid the pilots in this matter. State is too concerned with
alienating the new Brazilian government to protect US citizens.

Bob Fry wrote:

>>>>>>"BS" == Blueskies > writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> BS> This should
> BS> definitely be something that the state dept should be heavily
> BS> involved in, but not a word from them as far as I know.
>
>"State" should be doing all kinds of things in many problem areas of
>the world...but look at their record the last 6 years. Why should
>their leadership suddenly become competent on this issue?
>
>
>

[Chris]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Greg Farris wrote:
>> I don't know how things work in Brazil.
>> It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the accident
>> cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and
>> subjecting them
>> to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
>> defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as
>> well.
>>
>> One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong
>> emphasis
>> on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for
>> the
>> argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not
>> more so.
>>
>> I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This would
>> even
>> seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!
>
> Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
> U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
> U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
> U.S. citizens in the U.S..

And the same treaties allow the US to issue warrants in foreign countries
for the arrest of foreign nationals too. So what is the issue. You don't
expect a US citizen to receive a fair trial in a foreign country? It could
be argued that a foreigner would not get a fair trial in the US. Hell many
US citizens don't get a fair trial in the US.

[Blueskies]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message ...
: It gets worse than that. The gun laws in the USA, the Brady
: Instant Check, the Lautenberg amendments, the Form 4473 all
: check and ask if you are a "fugitive from justice" and if
: those pilots do not go back to Brazil and get cleared, they
: will be criminals here if the presently own, possess or buy
: any firearms.
:
:
:

And if they are ATPs, could they have their ticket yanked (no pun intended...)?

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
>
> >
> >Americans always get ****ed off when the U.S. deports U.S. citizens to
> >stand trail in foreign countries. Why do you think this will be
> >different?
>
>
> With all due respect, you're being a bit hard-headed about it.
> You keep responding with generalities about extradition and US marshals
> and all that jazz, when what people here are trying to say to you is that
> it is, in fact, the specifics of this case that make it appear likely they
> will not be going back there. Who knows, we may be wrong - but that's what
> it looks like.

I"m not sure why you say that. I think the gov't fully expects them to
return. I'm not sure why there were down there but its also likely that
their jobs require frequent returns there. In anycase, to do return,
without legal resolution means they are living life on the run and may
be arrested at any point in the U.S. No the way most people like to
live. It also prevents them from being employable by any airline
(outstanding warrents in any country)

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

601XL Builder wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > And a felon in another county is still considered a felon in
> > the USA, say good bye to your civil rights.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Not if a US Federal judge and the Sec State decide not to extradite them.

Which can happen at any time, any time of the day. In 6 years you could
be sleeping in bed with your wife, kids in the next room and the U.S.
Marshalls rush through the door and arrest your. That's not how most
people like to live.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

Remember they agreed to return.



"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
...
| Robert M. Gary wrote:
| > Greg Farris wrote:
| >> I don't know how things work in Brazil.
| >> It could be similar to Europe, where a full
investigation of the accident
| >> cannot be completed without naming purported
"perpetrators" and subjecting them
| >> to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two
pilots are named as
| >> defendants does not preclude the naming of the air
traffic controlers as well.
| >>
| >> One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts
a very strong emphasis
| >> on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving
little place for the
| >> argument that a system design weakness may be equally
to blame, if not more so.
| >>
| >> I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back
there - This would even
| >> seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed
to leave!!
| >
| > Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S.
citizen in the
| > U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
| > http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
| > U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue
arrest warrents for
| > U.S. citizens in the U.S..
| >
| > -Robert
| >
|
| Yes but a US court and the Secretary of State will decide
in the bounty
| hunter case if he is extradited. The same would happen in
the case of
| the pilots.

[Jim Macklin]

BATFE and the FBI decide, not the SecState, the warrant
still exists and they're still a fugitive. Same if you have
a traffic ticket in Florida and don't pay it. They will
issue a warrant and you become a fugitive from justice.
When you go to but a new shotgun, rifle or handgun, or renew
your concealed carry permit, the warrant will turn up.


"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > And a felon in another county is still considered a
felon in
| > the USA, say good bye to your civil rights.
| >
| >
| >
|
| Not if a US Federal judge and the Sec State decide not to
extradite them.

[Jim Macklin]

Can happen, does happen.



--
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.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| 601XL Builder wrote:
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| > > And a felon in another county is still considered a
felon in
| > > the USA, say good bye to your civil rights.
| > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| > Not if a US Federal judge and the Sec State decide not
to extradite them.
|
| Which can happen at any time, any time of the day. In 6
years you could
| be sleeping in bed with your wife, kids in the next room
and the U.S.
| Marshalls rush through the door and arrest your. That's
not how most
| people like to live.
|
| -Robert
|

[Jim Macklin]

Bad character clause.



"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message ...
| : It gets worse than that. The gun laws in the USA, the
Brady
| : Instant Check, the Lautenberg amendments, the Form 4473
all
| : check and ask if you are a "fugitive from justice" and
if
| : those pilots do not go back to Brazil and get cleared,
they
| : will be criminals here if the presently own, possess or
buy
| : any firearms.
| :
| :
| :
|
| And if they are ATPs, could they have their ticket yanked
(no pun intended...)?
|
|
|
|
|

[Matt Barrow]

> Bob Fry wrote:
>
> BS> This should
> BS> definitely be something that the state dept should be heavily
> BS> involved in, but not a word from them as far as I know.
>
>"State" should be doing all kinds of things in many problem areas of
>the world...but look at their record the last 6 years. Why should
>their leadership suddenly become competent on this issue?

Fry - full of s&*#t as usual...

Try the 1940's, SFBs.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> And a felon in another county is still considered a felon in
> the USA, say good bye to your civil rights.

Well, if it was GB, Australia, or some such, I'd say no problem, but the
rest of the world...NAH!
>
>
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Dan" > wrote in message
> |
> oups.com...
> | >
> | > Blueskies wrote:
> | >
> | >> ....They should go down there and fight. ...
> | >
> | > And risk rotting in a Brazillian prison for 12 years
> away from their
> | > familes should they lose? Not worth it...
> |
> | I think that's what Brazil is counting on; if they don't
> return, they
> | (Brazil) can hold a sham trial in absentia and find them
> guilty of
> | everything, thus covering their own asses which are
> presently hanging out in
> | the wind.
> |
> |
> http://joesharkeyat.blogspot.com/2006/12/pilots-out-of-brazil-after-bizarre-and.html
> | (Joe Sharkey was the journalist aboard the Legacy jet)
> |
> |
> | --
> | Matt
> | ---------------------
> | Matthew W. Barrow
> | Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> | Montrose, CO (MTJ)
> |
> |
>
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:14:35 -0600, in
>, Jim Macklin wrote:
> It gets worse than that. The gun laws in the USA, the Brady
> Instant Check, the Lautenberg amendments, the Form 4473 all
> check and ask if you are a "fugitive from justice" and if
> those pilots do not go back to Brazil and get cleared, they
> will be criminals here if the presently own, possess or buy
> any firearms.

Yeah, but all those ****in' "laws" are unconstitutional, so it doesn't
matter...

--
"What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?"

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Farris wrote:
>
>> I think the US pilots were given a one-way exit visa, and are not
>> expected to return.
>
> I also thought it funny that they held them this long with no charges and
> then charged them and returned their passports. Is this the Brazilian way
> to say "we had to charge you, but really don't want to try you so get
> outta here?"
>
> Matt

Brazil isn't on my mental list of Banana Republics, but this case smacks of
blaming a couple of gringo's for a problem with Brazillian ATC.

[Dan[_1_]]

So let's see... Find a new job and don't own a gun, or rot in a
Brazillian prison for years... Boy, that's a tough choice.

--Dan


Blueskies wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message ...
> : It gets worse than that. The gun laws in the USA, the Brady
> : Instant Check, the Lautenberg amendments, the Form 4473 all
> : check and ask if you are a "fugitive from justice" and if
> : those pilots do not go back to Brazil and get cleared, they
> : will be criminals here if the presently own, possess or buy
> : any firearms.
> :
> :
> :
>
> And if they are ATPs, could they have their ticket yanked (no pun intended...)?

[Blueskies]

"Dan" > wrote in message ups.com...
: So let's see... Find a new job and don't own a gun, or rot in a
: Brazillian prison for years... Boy, that's a tough choice.
:
: --Dan
:
:


So, you are saying they are guilty?

Dan D.

[Ron Lee]

I never saw whether it was clear at the collision point. If so, were
they in a position (either aircraft) to see the other or is that
unrealistic?

Ron Lee

[Dan[_1_]]

I'm saying that even though they are probably innocent, the Brazillian
courts are likely looking for a scapegoat. They stand a strong chance
of being found guilty even if they are not.

Dan


Blueskies wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message ups.com...
> : So let's see... Find a new job and don't own a gun, or rot in a
> : Brazillian prison for years... Boy, that's a tough choice.
> :
> : --Dan
> :
> :
>
>
> So, you are saying they are guilty?
>
> Dan D.

[Chris]

"Dan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm saying that even though they are probably innocent, the Brazillian
> courts are likely looking for a scapegoat. They stand a strong chance
> of being found guilty even if they are not.
>
> Dan

and that never happens in the US either?

[Flatulence]

Dan wrote:
> So let's see... Find a new job and don't own a gun, or rot in a
> Brazillian prison for years... Boy, that's a tough choice.
>

We don't know their personal situations so we can't make that decision
for them. Maybe they have small penises and *must* own guns.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Remember they agreed to return.
>

I would have as well. And it would take a US federal judge and the Sec State
to make me go back. I think that any US court would accept that that
agreement was given under duress.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Greg Farris wrote:
>>> I don't know how things work in Brazil.
>>> It could be similar to Europe, where a full investigation of the
>>> accident
>>> cannot be completed without naming purported "perpetrators" and
>>> subjecting them
>>> to a criminal investigation. The fact that the two pilots are named as
>>> defendants does not preclude the naming of the air traffic controlers as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> One possible weakness of such a method is that it puts a very strong
>>> emphasis
>>> on the importance of human imperfections, while leaving little place for
>>> the
>>> argument that a system design weakness may be equally to blame, if not
>>> more so.
>>>
>>> I agree the US pilots would be crazy to EVER go back there - This
>>> would even
>>> seem to be implicit in the fact that they were allowed to leave!!
>>
>> Its not unheard of for U.S. Marshalls to arrest a U.S. citizen in the
>> U.S. to stand for a warrent in a foreign country....
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/14/dog.bounty/index.html
>> U.S. treaties allow for foreign countries to issue arrest warrents for
>> U.S. citizens in the U.S..
>
> And the same treaties allow the US to issue warrants in foreign countries
> for the arrest of foreign nationals too. So what is the issue. You don't
> expect a US citizen to receive a fair trial in a foreign country? It could
> be argued that a foreigner would not get a fair trial in the US. Hell many
> US citizens don't get a fair trial in the US.
>

And very often foreign countries choose not to extradite people to the US.
The extradition treaties are not short documents there are lots of "if",
"or" and "but" statements in them.

[Matt Barrow]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I'm saying that even though they are probably innocent, the Brazillian
>> courts are likely looking for a scapegoat. They stand a strong chance
>> of being found guilty even if they are not.
>>
>> Dan
>
> and that never happens in the US either?

Occasionally, not as a matter of course unless you're one of the media's
enemies.
>

In the US there's an efficient appeals process and open media to apply
transparency to the process.

But you knew that before you shoved your head up into your anal cavity.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

The process for extradition of a US citizen to a foreign court does most
certainly go through a federal judge and the Sec State. If Brazil requests
extradition there will be a hearing before a US Federal Judge and even that
ruling is subject to appeal. The Sec of State can even overrule the ruling
if it is the favor of the foreign country.

If those things happen and they find that the US citizen is not going to be
extradited the US citizen is not then in violation of any US law and hence
the ATF and FBI couldn't care less.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> BATFE and the FBI decide, not the SecState, the warrant
> still exists and they're still a fugitive. Same if you have
> a traffic ticket in Florida and don't pay it. They will
> issue a warrant and you become a fugitive from justice.
> When you go to but a new shotgun, rifle or handgun, or renew
> your concealed carry permit, the warrant will turn up.
>
>
> "601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> ...
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > And a felon in another county is still considered a
> felon in
> | > the USA, say good bye to your civil rights.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> | Not if a US Federal judge and the Sec State decide not to
> extradite them.
>
>

[Jon]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Greg Farris wrote:
> >
> >> I think the US pilots were given a one-way exit visa, and are not
> >> expected to return.
> >
> > I also thought it funny that they held them this long with no charges and
> > then charged them and returned their passports. Is this the Brazilian way
> > to say "we had to charge you, but really don't want to try you so get
> > outta here?"
> >
> > Matt
>
> Brazil isn't on my mental list of Banana Republics, but this case smacks of
> blaming a couple of gringo's for a problem with Brazillian ATC.

Got the following forwarded in e-mail this morning:

============
Brazil air traffic improves, but crisis lingers
Thu 7 Dec 2006 9:26 AM ET

By Todd Benson

SAO PAULO, Brazil, Dec 7 (Reuters) - Air traffic in Brazil slowly began
to return to normal on Thursday after two days of near chaos at
airports around the country that has prompted calls for the resignation
of government aviation officials.

Dozens of flights were still delayed at several airports, Brazil's
civil aviation agency said. But the situation was a far cry from
Tuesday and Wednesday, when an equipment failure in a control tower
forced authorities to take the unprecedented step of temporarily
shutting down three major airports.

"The situation should be back to normal by the end of the day," a
spokeswoman for the aviation agency said.

At least 1,000 flights were delayed over the two-day span and 322 more
were canceled, triggering protests by outraged travelers and prompting
Brazil's Congress to create two separate committees to investigate the
situation.

The crisis has also led to calls for the resignation of Defense
Minister Waldir Pires and Air Force Commander Luiz Carlos Bueno, whose
handling of the situation has been widely criticized as ineffective.
The military is in charge of civil aviation in Brazil.

On Wednesday, the president of Brazil's lower house of Congress called
on the government to adopt "drastic measures" to address the crisis.
Some lawmakers and aviation experts said it was time for the military
to hand over control of the aviation system to civilian authorities.

Air traffic in Brazil has been badly disrupted since a Boeing 737
operated by Brazilian airline Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes
<GOLL4.SA.> crashed in the Amazon rain forest on Sept. 29, killing all
154 people aboard.

The inquiry into the accident, which is still inconclusive, exposed
major fault lines in the country's air traffic control system.

In response, air traffic controllers have organized work slowdowns to
protest poor pay and long hours, disrupting air traffic several times
in the last two months.

Authorities are investigating if this week's breakdown was the result
of sabotage by disgruntled controllers, who have complained that they
are being made scapegoats for the September crash.

Some analysts say the crisis could have a ripple effect on the economy
in Brazil, a continent-sized country where flying is often the only
option for business travelers.

Airlines are already feeling the pinch. Shares in Brazil's top two
airlines, TAM Linhas Aereas <TAMM4.SA> and Gol, have each fallen more
than 15 percent in the last two months.

And on Thursday, Gol slashed its revenue forecast for this year for the
second time in a month, citing a drop in passenger traffic because of
the crisis. TAM declined to comment on a potential drop in revenue.
============

[Kyle Boatright]

"Flatulence" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dan wrote:
>> So let's see... Find a new job and don't own a gun, or rot in a
>> Brazillian prison for years... Boy, that's a tough choice.
>>
>
> We don't know their personal situations so we can't make that decision
> for them. Maybe they have small penises and *must* own guns.

On the other hand, they could have miniscule penises and troll newsgroups.

[Montblack]

("Kyle Boatright" wrote)
>> We don't know their personal situations so we can't make that decision
>> for them. Maybe they have small penises and *must* own guns.

> On the other hand, they could have miniscule penises and troll newsgroups.


Would inserting the preposition "In ..." make that statement more true?


Montblack

[Flatulence]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Flatulence" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Dan wrote:
> >> So let's see... Find a new job and don't own a gun, or rot in a
> >> Brazillian prison for years... Boy, that's a tough choice.
> >>
> >
> > We don't know their personal situations so we can't make that decision
> > for them. Maybe they have small penises and *must* own guns.
>
> On the other hand, they could have miniscule penises and troll newsgroups.

More likely they'd buy a Humvee.

[Mike Schumann]

The fact that neither aircraft had a TCAS warning was a very significant
contributor to the accident. Given that both aircraft were virtually brand
new, this raises a lot of questions.

Mike Schumann

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> This story just gets more and more bizarre... based on the evidence
> I've seen reported so far, it certainly sounds to me like the Brazilian
> air traffic control system itself is solely to blame for this accident.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/brazil.pilots.ap/index.html
>
> --
> Guy
>

[Ash Wyllie]

Mike Schumann opined

>The fact that neither aircraft had a TCAS warning was a very significant
>contributor to the accident. Given that both aircraft were virtually brand
>new, this raises a lot of questions.
>

Doesn't TCAS need surrounding transponders to be interogated by radar?

If so, then does TCAS work in an area without radar coverage?



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

> Doesn't TCAS need surrounding transponders to be interogated by radar?

No. TCAS II (aka ACAS in Europe) interrogates other aircraft.
>
> If so, then does TCAS work in an area without radar coverage?

see above.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The fact that neither aircraft had a TCAS warning was a very significant
> contributor to the accident. Given that both aircraft were virtually brand
> new, this raises a lot of questions.

I read that the major weakness of TCAS is that they do not perform very well for
nearly head on flight paths. True? I don't know. I just read it, somewhere.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Morgans" >
wrote:

> I read that the major weakness of TCAS is that they do not perform very well
> for
> nearly head on flight paths. True? I don't know. I just read it,
> somewhere.

read it where?

Given how TCAS II works, it doesn't make sense that a head-on encounter
wouldn't work well, even at cruise speeds.

Have you ever talked to anyone that was involved in flight testing of
TCAS II?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Chris]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Ash Wyllie" >
> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't TCAS need surrounding transponders to be interogated by radar?
>
> No. TCAS II (aka ACAS in Europe) interrogates other aircraft.
>>

No, it is TCAS II in Europe too. ACAS is the ICAO generic name for the
system.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Chris" >
wrote:

> No, it is TCAS II in Europe too. ACAS is the ICAO generic name for the
> system.

well, that's not what some Europeans have told me...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Chris]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Chris"
> >
> wrote:
>
>> No, it is TCAS II in Europe too. ACAS is the ICAO generic name for the
>> system.
>
> well, that's not what some Europeans have told me...
>
They must be right then. I only got the information out of one of the JAA
(European) ATPL Instruments textbook which is used to prepare for the ATPL
exams.

or you can look here and see what they describe as the learning objectives
Bottom of page 32 of 41.

http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/jar-fcl/jar-fcl_atpla_frame.html

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote

> read it where?

If I knew, I would have gone back and quoted it, here! <g> That is kinda' like
trying to look up how to spell a wierd word in a dictionary. How do you look up
how to spell it, if you don't know how to spell it? ;-)

I think it was on one of the aviation newsletters that I get on a subscription
basis. AvWeb, perhaps?

> Given how TCAS II works, it doesn't make sense that a head-on encounter
> wouldn't work well, even at cruise speeds.

Could be the high closing speeds, the radiation paterns of the antenna, or
something. I don't have any more details.

> Have you ever talked to anyone that was involved in flight testing of
> TCAS II?

Nope. Like I said, I only heard (or read) it, and posted it as a very "iffy",
possible-maybe-could be it-explanation.

Not very definitive, don't you think? <g>
--
Jim in NC