ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

In article ,
spam says...

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


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

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

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

G Faris

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
spam says...

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

No. That's preposterous.

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

Could you explain why you disagree?

Thanks,
Gary

Greg Farris wrote:

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

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

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

Peter Duniho wrote:
..

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

If he had been shot down over DC it would have been dangerous to those
on the ground :-)

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

Peter Duniho wrote:

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

The minute the F-16s were scrambled.

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

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

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

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

Pete

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

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

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

Pete


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

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

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

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

The minute the F-16s were scrambled.


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


Montblack

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

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

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

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

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

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


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

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

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


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