ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"Roger" wrote in message
...

Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased)
and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


He didn't use DUATS...he said he used something like the Weather Channel.

I doubt he was aware that even if erased a disk can be read. If he WAS
aware, I think his lawyer was figuring that doing a disk recovery would be
major overkill.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

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

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

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

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

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

Pete


Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the trigger...

Jay B

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01...
Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the
trigger...

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

Peter Duniho wrote:

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

If you fly into a war zone, the hazards are also not of your creation;
nevertheless, *you* will have placed all occupants of the plane in a hazardous
situation, and *you* are responsible.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:18:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

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

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

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.