ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an expert
"consultant".

I was thinking of the feds.

I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's findings.
They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
forensic study.

Michael

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Any disreputable forensic analyzer that doesn't know how to dummy up
"evidence" of a surfing visit to any particular site isn't going to stay
in their dirty business long.


Luckily, the reputable ones will almost certainly be able to tell if data is
manipulated, simply by following correct forensic procedures. Unless your
assuming that we are all disreputable and that we are all engaged in a
"dirty business"...

Michael

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as
this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an
expert
"consultant".

I was thinking of the feds.

I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's
findings.
They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
forensic study.

Sigh....

Schaeffer (?) and the lawyer were expecting their claim of having checked
the information via the internet and using non-recorded use history would
cover his ass from a charge of negligence. They expected this claim to
"fly" (sorry), and expected that the feds would not tear apart Schaeffers PC
(if they even considered THAT possibility).

Like I'd said earlier; it's akin to "the check was mailed two weeks ago, but
I didn't send it registered mail".

"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...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as
this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an
expert
"consultant".

I was thinking of the feds.

I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's
findings.
They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
forensic study.

Sigh....

Schaeffer (?) and the lawyer were expecting their claim of having checked
the information via the internet and using non-recorded use history would
cover his ass from a charge of negligence. They expected this claim to
"fly" (sorry), and expected that the feds would not tear apart Schaeffers
PC
(if they even considered THAT possibility).

Like I'd said earlier; it's akin to "the check was mailed two weeks ago,
but
I didn't send it registered mail".

That's possible, but if that is part of defense's strategy he needs a new
lawyer. I don't believe the attorney thinks for a minute that, in the
absence of proof, the FAA will be the least bit impressed by the claim to
have used the internet to get any form of briefing.

Michael

"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

In rec.aviation.owning Roger wrote:
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

Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
only one that officially counts.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...
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...

But are they protecting DC from the rest of the country or the rest of the
country from DC... Personally, I would prefer it to be the latter...

Gary Drescher wrote:
"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Michael 182 wrote:

It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed he
visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.

I think the point is moot. Unless you are connecting to DUATS
through AOPA, I don't think they are an official source of NOTAM
information.
As I understand previous rulings by the FAA courts and
NTSB, you're not protected unless you got your NOTAM info from either
DUATS or a FSS briefer (both of which are recorded).


Can you cite those rulings, please? I can readily believe that you might
assume the *burden of proof* that you obtained a briefing from another
source. But that's very different from saying that another source doesn't
count even if you *meet* the burden of proof.


If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I
really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight?


If your source includes then same information that DUATS or FSS is offering,
then of course you have.

--Gary



But how do you know the third party source has all the same information
that the DUATS or FSS is offering unless you use them as your source?