ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment,
Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at*
the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal
responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing
otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy.

Oops, sorry, what I just said was inaccurate--Greg didn't make that mistake.
Rather, he proposed a slightly different analogy, which I amended to make it
closer to the situation under discussion; then I addressed the *amended*
analogy.

--Gary

But surely the perpetrator of a violent felony would be *at
least* as responsible for the death (by accidental police fire) of a
bystander...

Well, you're comparing a violent felony with an airspace incursion by a
basic trainer. For a better comparsion, would the perpetrator of a
trespass be responsible for the deaths of innocent bystanders when the
police fire machine guns to stop him from reaching the front door with
some leaflets?

There needs to be an expection that the criminal act will reasonably
result in a certain response for the perpetrator to be responsible for
the result of that response.

Jose
r.a.owning and r.a.student retained, though I don't follow those groups.
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the
crime?

Not offhand. But surely the perpetrator of a violent felony would be *at
least* as responsible for the death (by accidental police fire) of a
bystander or of a victim as for the death of an accomplice.

Because one can reasonably assume that someone trying to prevent the crime
would fire upon the participants in the crime, but not upon an innocent
bystander.

Note that I'm not claiming the law says one thing or another. I am simply
pointing out that the example provided is ambiguous and there are plausible
interpretations that don't support the earlier claim made.

[...]
Why wouldn't bystanders be deemed foreseeably endangered by an armed bank
robbery? Seems pretty foreseeable to me. A reasonable person feels
(justifiably) frightened to be in the middle of such a robbery, right?

I agree they feel frightened. "Justifiably" is in the eye of the beholder,
just as are restrictions on aircraft, and even on passengers on commercial
airlines. It could just as easily be argued that it isn't in a bank
robber's best interest to harm the innocent bystanders, that the bystanders
aren't even the target of the robbery (usually), and that if they just stay
calm and do nothing, they'll be fine.

In this situation, an armed guard who tries to stop the robbery could create
a hazardous situation out of one that was otherwise not going to present a
hazard to the bystanders.

Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of
situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious
that an airspace violation.

Of course, but that wasn't the point of the discussion.

Sure it is. I will grant that the original example supposedly being refuted
by you can be divorced from my statement that you quoted here. But to do so
doesn't contribute much to the real question: how is the pilot in this case
guilty of causing a hazard to life or property?

Even a criminal engaging in a felony is not necessarily guilty of causing a
murder, even if someone is killed. It takes a very particular circumstance
for that to be held true. Even if it might be understandable (from an
emotional point of view) for the victim of the crime to use deadly force,
the criminal is not automatically held responsible.

To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment,
Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at*
the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal
responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing
otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy.

Change the word "robber" to "burglar", and his example holds up just fine.

And in the case of penetrations all the way into the FRZ, deadly force is
also authorized, and is well known to be authorized. Hence, its
use--whether the policy is reasonable or not--is a readily foreseeable
consequence of such an incursion, and thus a readily foreseeable source of
danger to the pilot, his passenger, and the folks below him.

First of all, deadly force has NEVER been used. It's not authorized per se,
though the government does repeatedly claim that they WILL authorize deadly
force. It's hard to imagine a pilot seriously believing that the government
will shoot down a C150 until it actually happens. Maybe it will, maybe it
won't, but I'd disagree with the "well known to be authorized" claim. Some
people may foolishly believe the government to have enough common sense to
not go around murdering pilots just because they crossed some invisible
boundary, especially when that murder could create just as much hazard to
life and property of others as the airplane might threaten even under the
control of a malicious pilot.

I agree our government doesn't have that much common sense. But I don't
think it's fair to say that no person should or could possibly hold that
belief.

Furthermore, it's not foreseeable to someone who failed to discover the
restricted area in the first place, and who failed to realize they were in
the restricted area. Going back to the robbery example, in that case the
robber knows full well what they are doing, and is held accountable. In
this case, the pilot is being accused of intentionally endangering the life
or property of someone else, when in fact the pilot did no such thing.

Which brings us full circle to my original concern: 91.13 truly is a
"catch-all" regulation, as used by the FAA. It really doesn't seem to
matter to them whether there was any specific disregard of safety. Using
the broad interpretation of the language of that regulation that the FAA
uses, as well as those defending the charge, 91.13 would apply to
practically any violation of any FAR. After all, practically all of the
regulations are designed for the purpose of providing safety to the life or
property of others. A violation of any other regulation could be construed
as a de facto violation of 91.13 under that interpretation.

Why not just have a regulation that says "it is a violation of this
regulation to violate any other regulation in the FARs"?

Pete

("George Patterson" 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?

The minute the F-16s were scrambled.


Speaking of reporters (as happens around here from time to time)
.....wouldn't it be interesting if some young enterprising cub reporter went
out and found those flares?


Montblack

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Recently, Bucky posted:

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
guns blazing.

Call your local police department and ask them if they know a better way.

When they get done laughing, let us know what they said.

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
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.


Which is why his legal team must mount the "Miracle on 34th Street" defense:

"We intend to prove there really is a Santa Clause Your Honor"

They need to make the case about the FAA, Homeland Security, TSA, the Media,
etc. But what do I know about legal matters? I thought OJ did it


Montblack
"But... but maybe he's only a little crazy like painters or composers or...
or some of those men in Washington." - Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

Neil Gould wrote:
Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
gunpoint".

I can't come up with any counter-arguments because apparently you think
being spread-eagled at gunpoint is the worst thing that can happen to a
person.

There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed

Like what? Asking them if they were armed? Having them walk through a
metal detector?

Let's say you were a cop who just caught a suspected drug dealer
driving a stolen car. How would you approach him? You'd point your gun
at him and tell him to get down on the ground with his hands behind his
head. Otherwise, he might just reach for a weapon. Well, at that point
in time, they didn't know who these two guys were, they could have been
drug dealers, terrorists, mental patients, or just two clueless pilots.

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:abyke.10075$BF5.1153@trndny06...
Paul kgyy wrote:
What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
government against a C150?

They were just practicing. Customs is working to try to take over enforcement of the ADIZ from the FAA. Representative
Mark Souder of Indiana tried to add an ammendment to the HS bill to give them control over it.

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'.

Think about this folks....Customs patrols the borders where the ADIZ is supposed to be...our gov't is so confused that
it thinks it has a country inside our country, thus the ADIZ around DC. So the Customs plane was simply protecting the
border inside the border...

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:Qjyke.18423$4d6.6648@trndny04...

In short, coming from that direction, it would be real easy to bust the ADIZ without knowing it, but *extremely* hard
to get as far as they did without knowing you're over D.C..

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'.


What altitude were they at, and what was the flight visibility?

On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

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).

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com