ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

In rec.aviation.owning Mike Granby wrote:

Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.

Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

If you are smart you hire an attorney at the first smell of trouble.

If you are smart and get what amounts to a slap on the wrist, you keep
your mouth shut and let sleeping dogs lay.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"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

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

Recently, George Patterson posted:

AES wrote:

As I read through the above I kept thinking more and mo despite
the first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like
words _very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.

Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by the
authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at gunpoint,
this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.

Neil

"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

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Alyke.18428$4d6.5879@trndny04...
AES wrote:
Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

George Patterson

Sounds like it to me too. This guy is a hazzard and has no business
anywhere near an airplane.

In article ,
says...



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?


Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not engendered
buy the actions of the "offender". The lethal danger presented by the
actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a danger that is
controlled by experts in the interest of public safety, and as such not
a a danger to the public. If the police shoot at a fleeing bank robber,
and miss, do we charge the robber for attempted murder, because he could
have been killed?

G Faris

Paul kgyy wrote:
What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
government against a C150? Threaten them with loss of duty free
privileges????????????????

Customs owns the blackhawks too. They're on loan to the DC area
security efforts. Helicopters are a bit more appropriate (if you're
not going to fire weapons) than jets for shooing away wayward light
planes.