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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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$$ to the wall no matter how many NASA forms you filled out. You are very much incorrect there. Providing you meet the other prerequisites, having filed a ASRS form *does* protect you from FAA enforcement action, and you need only file one (the one for the event you wish to be protected for). Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... You are very much incorrect there. Providing you meet the other prerequisites, having filed a ASRS form *does* protect you from FAA enforcement action, and you need only file one (the one for the event you wish to be protected for). It doesn't protect you from an enforcement action, it just mitigates the sanction in certain circumstances. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Gig Giacona" wrote in message ... Let's keep in mind... The NASA form is NOT a get out of jail free card. Yes, it is. They can't use the info you give on the form against you in an enforcement action. You are correct there. Info they get elsewhere like the from the pilot and the gun camera of the F-16 that had you locked while you are flitting around the ADIZ can still be used to nail your a$$ 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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Landing a Mooney | Jon Kraus | Owning | 42 | November 16th 04 07:00 PM |
Mooney M20 K on Grass ? | Andrew Boyd | Owning | 0 | August 13th 04 03:00 PM |
Mooney info | eddie | Owning | 13 | March 12th 04 06:42 PM |
Regarding the Subject of the ADIZ and Other Restrictions Following 9-11 | Larry Smith | Home Built | 1 | November 22nd 03 12:31 AM |
Cirrus vs Mooney | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 6 | July 8th 03 11:35 PM |