Cessna Over DC -- NASA Form?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

--Gary


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

Mike
MU-2

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

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

--Gary

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

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...9----000-.html

--Gary

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

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

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

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

--Gary

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

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

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