A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

that Mooney in DC ADIZ



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 03, 12:25 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default that Mooney in DC ADIZ


From the Aero-News email letter this morning:

Shortly after 1100
Monday morning, a lone Mooney M20E allegedly strayed into the
Washington ADIZ, causing a pretty extensive security alert --
including the launching of two F-16s and a bit of excitement at the
White House... even though the President was away.


NORAD's MSgt Gary Carpenter spoke to ANN a few moments ago and
reported that two F-16s were dispatched from Andrews AFB to
intercept the Mooney. The intercept proceeded well, and the pilot
complied with the instructions given to him and was escorted from
the airspace. "The aircraft was not a threat, and once out of the
airspace, he was allowed to continue south."


Upon leaving the airspace, the aircraft originally bound for
Jacksonville, FL, was allowed to continue to a fuel stop in SC and
was shadowed by a Customs aircraft for part (if not all) of the
route. White House officials note that both President Bush and
First Lady Laura Bush were NOT at the White House at the time, but
that Vice President Cheney was. As a result of this incursion, Vice
President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
were moved temporarily to a secure location until the situation was
judged to be non-threatening.


FAA Sources had limited
information when we talked to them, but all concerned seemed to
understand that this appeared to be an accidental violation of the
ADIZ. According to the FAA's Bill Shumann, both the ADIZ and a
Restricted Area were violated.


The massive and intricate Washington ADIZ, often a source of
concern to both Private and Commercial pilots, is under increasing
fire for being increasingly hard to navigate as well as the fact
that the tolerances involved in getting around certain areas of the
ADIZ leave little room for error... especially when the weather is
less than decent VFR.


The pilot is expected to be interviewed and interrogated about
the incident in SC, if not in JAX. Possible enforcement actions may
be taken by the FAA against his certificate, depending on the
circumstances involved. More info to follow...
FMI: www.faa.gov, www.whitehouse.gov


For the WHOLE story, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav....19b3&Dynamic=1

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #2  
Old November 12th 03, 03:07 AM
Greg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The pilot is expected to be interviewed and interrogated about
the incident in SC, if not in JAX. Possible enforcement actions may
be taken by the FAA against his certificate, depending on the
circumstances involved. More info to follow...
FMI: www.faa.gov, www.whitehouse.gov


In this case would filling out a NASA form do this pilot any good?
  #3  
Old November 12th 03, 04:01 PM
Malcolm Teas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Greg) wrote in message . com...
The pilot is expected to be interviewed and interrogated about
the incident in SC, if not in JAX. Possible enforcement actions may
be taken by the FAA against his certificate, depending on the
circumstances involved. More info to follow...
FMI:
www.faa.gov, www.whitehouse.gov


In this case would filling out a NASA form do this pilot any good?


Nah, in the case of the ADIZ you'd have to file the NASA form with
your flight plan.
  #4  
Old November 12th 03, 07:50 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
Let's keep in mind... The NASA form is NOT a get out of jail free card.


Yes, it is.

They
can't use the info you give on the form against you in an enforcement
action.


You are correct there.

Info they get elsewhere like the from the pilot and the gun camera
of the F-16 that had you locked while you are flitting around the ADIZ can
still be used to nail your a$$ to the wall no matter how many NASA forms

you
filled out.


You are very much incorrect there. Providing you meet the other
prerequisites, having filed a ASRS form *does* protect you from FAA
enforcement action, and you need only file one (the one for the event you
wish to be protected for).

Pete


  #5  
Old November 12th 03, 08:38 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

You are very much incorrect there. Providing you meet the other
prerequisites, having filed a ASRS form *does* protect you from FAA
enforcement action, and you need only file one (the one for the event you
wish to be protected for).

It doesn't protect you from an enforcement action, it just mitigates the
sanction in certain circumstances.


  #6  
Old November 12th 03, 10:15 PM
Gig Giacona
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...
Let's keep in mind... The NASA form is NOT a get out of jail free card.


Yes, it is.

They
can't use the info you give on the form against you in an enforcement
action.


You are correct there.

Info they get elsewhere like the from the pilot and the gun camera
of the F-16 that had you locked while you are flitting around the ADIZ

can
still be used to nail your a$$ to the wall no matter how many NASA forms

you
filled out.


You are very much incorrect there. Providing you meet the other
prerequisites, having filed a ASRS form *does* protect you from FAA
enforcement action, and you need only file one (the one for the event you
wish to be protected for).


You are giving the ASRS form a little more power than it has. Filling one
out "is considered by FAA to be indicative of a constructive attitude." But
the meat of the protection is up to the FAA Administrator because this line
"discloses a lack of qualification or competency" can be read many different
ways.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm

5 b reads

When violation of the FAR comes to the attention of the FAA from a source
other than a report filed with NASA under the ASRS, appropriate action will
be taken. See paragraph 9.

9 c reads
The filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or occurrence
involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or the FAR is considered by
FAA to be indicative of a constructive attitude. Such an attitude will tend
to prevent future violations. Accordingly, although a finding of violation
may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be
imposed if:
the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
the violation did not involve a criminal offense, or accident. or action
under 49 U.S.C. Section 44709 which discloses a lack of qualification or
competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy;
the person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have
committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or any regulation
promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence;
and
the person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, he or she
completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or
occurrence to NASA under ASRS. See paragraphs 5c and 7b.


  #7  
Old November 12th 03, 11:16 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
It doesn't protect you from an enforcement action, it just mitigates the
sanction in certain circumstances.


How is mitigation (or outright prevention of a penalty, as would typically
be the case) not "protection"?


  #8  
Old November 12th 03, 11:52 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
It doesn't protect you from an enforcement action, it just mitigates the
sanction in certain circumstances.


How is mitigation (or outright prevention of a penalty, as would typically
be the case) not "protection"?

I just didn't want people to get the impression that the form some how stopped
the enforcement action. The FAA isn't going to go away just because you hold
up your ASRS report. They will still pursue the enforcement action against you.
It will still be on your record. And, the it's still entirely discretionary on the FAA's
part. They have a big out in that there's an exemption for the same nondescript
bull**** that lets them give you 609 rides.


  #9  
Old November 13th 03, 03:47 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter Duniho wrote:
"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

Let's keep in mind... The NASA form is NOT a get out of jail free card.



Yes, it is.


No, it's not. If the Mooney guy didn't get a briefing from FSS or
DUAT's for example, he is toast, period. No amount of NASA forms will
keep him from losing his ticket. You don't get to just totally screw
something up, fill out a NASA form and walk away fat, dumb and happy.
It doesn't work that way.

  #10  
Old November 13th 03, 06:33 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Issue 46b November 13, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

DON'T GO THERE
The pilot who plodded along in a Mooney M20 above the Potomac River on
Monday morning flew within eight miles of the White House, and managed
to intrude not only into the Air Defense Identification Zone, but also
its inner ring, the Flight Restricted Zone, which extends in a radius
of 15 nm from the Washington Monument. In some cases of piloting
errors, filing a reporting form within the Aviation Safety Reporting
System can sometimes offer some level of "immunity" -- against
sanctions, not against prosecution. FAA, spokesman William Shumann
told AVweb, "In those cases where a penalty was imposed even though an
ASRS report was filed, it might be because the pilot didn't check
NOTAMs or otherwise comply with FAR 91.103, which requires a pilot to
'become familiar with all available information concerning that
flight.'" As for satisfying those requirements, "If one wants to be
legalistic, the Automated Flight Service Stations are the only
'official' source of information, and DUAT is the only 'authorized'
source outside of AFSS," but Shumann said that applies only to Part
121 and 135 -- not Part 91 operators.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186076

....IN THE AFTERMATH OF ANOTHER INCURSION
Could Monday's incursion of White House airspace by a Mooney pilot
actually be a blessing in disguise? It may turn out that way if it
highlights what's becoming an increasing frustration for the FAA --
and GA pilots. Since Feb. 10, when the ADIZ was put in place in
Washington, it has been violated more than 600 times. "Frankly, we're
a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it, and we don't know
why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb yesterday. "It's on the
charts, it's on our Web site." Pilots who violate the ADIZ (so far
none have been discovered to be full-fledged evil-doers, or even to
harbor any ill-intent) generally get a 30- to 90-day suspension of
their certificate, Shumann said, but each case is handled
individually. The range of possibilities does include revocation.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186077



On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 06:25:34 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote in Message-Id:
:


From the Aero-News email letter this morning:

Shortly after 1100
Monday morning, a lone Mooney M20E allegedly strayed into the
Washington ADIZ, causing a pretty extensive security alert --
including the launching of two F-16s and a bit of excitement at the
White House... even though the President was away.


NORAD's MSgt Gary Carpenter spoke to ANN a few moments ago and
reported that two F-16s were dispatched from Andrews AFB to
intercept the Mooney. The intercept proceeded well, and the pilot
complied with the instructions given to him and was escorted from
the airspace. "The aircraft was not a threat, and once out of the
airspace, he was allowed to continue south."


Upon leaving the airspace, the aircraft originally bound for
Jacksonville, FL, was allowed to continue to a fuel stop in SC and
was shadowed by a Customs aircraft for part (if not all) of the
route. White House officials note that both President Bush and
First Lady Laura Bush were NOT at the White House at the time, but
that Vice President Cheney was. As a result of this incursion, Vice
President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
were moved temporarily to a secure location until the situation was
judged to be non-threatening.


FAA Sources had limited
information when we talked to them, but all concerned seemed to
understand that this appeared to be an accidental violation of the
ADIZ. According to the FAA's Bill Shumann, both the ADIZ and a
Restricted Area were violated.


The massive and intricate Washington ADIZ, often a source of
concern to both Private and Commercial pilots, is under increasing
fire for being increasingly hard to navigate as well as the fact
that the tolerances involved in getting around certain areas of the
ADIZ leave little room for error... especially when the weather is
less than decent VFR.


The pilot is expected to be interviewed and interrogated about
the incident in SC, if not in JAX. Possible enforcement actions may
be taken by the FAA against his certificate, depending on the
circumstances involved. More info to follow...
FMI: www.faa.gov, www.whitehouse.gov


For the WHOLE story, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav....19b3&Dynamic=1

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landing a Mooney Jon Kraus Owning 42 November 16th 04 08:00 PM
Mooney M20 K on Grass ? Andrew Boyd Owning 0 August 13th 04 03:00 PM
Mooney info eddie Owning 13 March 12th 04 07:42 PM
Regarding the Subject of the ADIZ and Other Restrictions Following 9-11 Larry Smith Home Built 1 November 22nd 03 01:31 AM
Cirrus vs Mooney Charles Talleyrand Owning 6 July 8th 03 11:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.