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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
The written immunity policy does not provide for any exception concerning ADIZs. No, things work the other way 'round. The rules about the ADIZ provide for an exception to the immunity policy. Violate it, you get a suspension. George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:E2Vge.4953$1f5.4341@trndny01... Gary Drescher wrote: The written immunity policy does not provide for any exception concerning ADIZs. No, things work the other way 'round. The rules about the ADIZ provide for an exception to the immunity policy. Violate it, you get a suspension. If the government explicitly says "I promise you immunity from sanctions if you meet conditions A, B, C", and you go ahead and meet conditions A, B, C, then the government can't turn around and say "But wait! We've also decided that there's an exception unless you also meet condition D, so we're going ahead and imposing sanctions". That would just be a blatant violation of the stated promise; if they could get away with that, then immunity promises would be meaningless. And as I pointed out, our legal system depends heavily on the integrity of immunity promises. It's not something the courts would allow the government to abandon just to impose a minor penalty on some pilot. So it's not surprising that no one has been able to cite an actual example where an ASRS immunity promise was broken (due to an accidental ADIZ incursion, or for any other reason). --Gary |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
If the government explicitly says "I promise you immunity from sanctions if you meet conditions A, B, C", and you go ahead and meet conditions A, B, C, then the government can't turn around and say "But wait! We've also decided that there's an exception unless you also meet condition D, so we're going ahead and imposing sanctions". Of course it can. That would just be a blatant violation of the stated promise; if they could get away with that, then immunity promises would be meaningless. So? And as I pointed out, our legal system depends heavily on the integrity of immunity promises. This is not our legal system. This is the TSA giving orders to the FAA. 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'. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Ew4he.422$mv5.82@trndny07... This is not our legal system. This is the TSA giving orders to the FAA. Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial review. What puzzles me is why you think the government is simultaneously so blasé about the incursion that they don't even press any criminal charges, yet so determined that they would try to jettison due process by abrogating a legally binding ASRS promise of immunity merely in order to impose a minor administrative penalty. --Gary |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
If the government explicitly says "I promise you immunity from sanctions if you meet conditions A, B, C", and you go ahead and meet conditions A, B, C, then the government can't turn around and say "But wait! We've also decided that there's an exception unless you also meet condition D, so we're going ahead and imposing sanctions". That would just be a blatant violation of the stated promise; if they could get away with that, then immunity promises would be meaningless. And as I pointed out, our legal system depends heavily on the integrity of immunity promises. It's not something the courts would allow the government to abandon just to impose a minor penalty on some pilot. So it's not surprising that no one has been able to cite an actual example where an ASRS immunity promise was broken (due to an accidental ADIZ incursion, or for any other reason). I don't know if it's true that ASRS immunity isn't available for ADIZ incursions -- but just because it isn't, that doesn't mean a promise is being broken. Due process is only being interfered with if they change the rules after the fact. The ASRS immunity policy lays out specific exceptions beforehand, one of them being that the action in question didn't disclose "a lack of qualification or competency." IMO, being so lost that someone ends up 3 miles from the White House shows a lack of qualification or competency. The immunity policy references 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44709, and that says that the FAA Administrator can make that decision after an investigation or a re-examination. So there's no blatant violation of the stated promise. The stated promise is that you get immunity if you file a report, and your action didn't fall under several specific exceptions. (Admittedly, wouldn't most mistakes that could get your certificate revoked show some lack of qualification or competancy? I don't know what the standard is for the FAA to decide you need a re-examination.) The links to the ASRS immunity policy and 49 U.S.C. Sec 44709: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...9----000-.html Charles. -N8385U |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial review. And if the FAA doesn't like the results of that review, they take it to the NTSB, who will almost always overrule the judge. 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'. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles O'Rourke" wrote in message
ups.com... (Admittedly, wouldn't most mistakes that could get your certificate revoked show some lack of qualification or competancy? I don't know what the standard is for the FAA to decide you need a re-examination.) Yes, this was discussed under the "Cessna over DC--NASA Form?" thread. The thing is that Section 44709 only permits certificate action if a pilot is reasonable judged to be unable to fly safely in the *future*. It can't be used to impose a punishment or deterrent. So at worst, it could be invoked here to require some remedial navigational training. --Gary |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ea5he.93$n95.6@trndny08... Gary Drescher wrote: Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial review. And if the FAA doesn't like the results of that review, they take it to the NTSB, who will almost always overrule the judge. Overrule the judge? Are you claiming that the NTSB is exempt from oversight by the judiciary? --Gary |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
Yes, this was discussed under the "Cessna over DC--NASA Form?" thread. The thing is that Section 44709 only permits certificate action if a pilot is reasonable judged to be unable to fly safely in the *future*. It can't be used to impose a punishment or deterrent. So at worst, it could be invoked here to require some remedial navigational training. Right, but if the FAA can impose some remedial navigational training (or other such re-examination), doesn't that specifically fall under the ASRS immunity exceptions? So in other words, the re-examination under Section 44709 isn't the punishment, but the fact that it happens removes your ASRS immunity and leaves you open to the possibility of certificate action. I guess the easiest way to figure this out would be to find some FAA/court decision where a pilot filed an ASRS form but still was punished because his action fell under one of the exceptions. I'll look around. Charles. -N8385U |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
Overrule the judge? Are you claiming that the NTSB is exempt from oversight by the judiciary? Absolutely. 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'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA form use for someone else's event | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 4 | March 31st 05 01:50 PM |
First NASA form filed | Paul Folbrecht | Piloting | 38 | August 24th 04 05:39 PM |
Runway Incursion and NASA form | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 16 | November 12th 03 01:37 AM |
Runway Incursion and NASA form | steve mew | Piloting | 0 | November 10th 03 05:37 AM |
Moving violation..NASA form? | Nasir | Piloting | 47 | November 5th 03 07:56 PM |