Would a NASA form help?

Gary Drescher wrote:

Naturally the FAA will want to come down hard on this guy. But that has no
bearing on whether they can take any action against him if he meets the
stated ASRS immunity conditions. (I hope for his sake that he submits an
ASRS report by the deadline.)

Well, they've done it before.

From AvWeb 11/13/03

TFRs, ASRS, And Avoiding Enforcement Action...

The pilot who plodded along in a Mooney M20 above the Potomac River on Monday
morning (11/10/03) 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 that applies only to Part
121 and 135 -- not Part 91 operators.

Part 91 operators "can use whatever sources of weather and other information
they wish to meet the requirement of getting all the information necessary for a
safe flight," said Shumann. Concerned Part 91 operators may feel more
comfortable using only the "official" sources listed above -- regardless of the
type of operation.

The Washington ADIZ has been there for six months now, and while it has not been
decreed a permanent fixture, "There is no indication that it is going to go away
anytime soon," says Shumann. So for pilots not only in the Northeast, but
anywhere, it goes without saying: check NOTAMS and choose your information
sources wisely. And if you ever do find an otherwise friendly F-16 off your
wing, don't forget your intercepting signals, and intercept procedures.

....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. It might be
more understandable that pilots can be tripped up by Temporary Flight
Restrictions that appear with no warning (like those that follow the president),
but it seems it would be tough to miss the ADIZ and the FRZ. The FRZ has been
violated much less often than the ADIZ, Shumann said.

Jean Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Secret Service, told The New York Times the
pilot had thought he was abiding by the flight restrictions around Washington,
not realizing they had been changed after the terrorist attacks. The Secret
Service was satisfied that he had not intended any harm, Mitchell told the Times.

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'.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:qwdhe.458$mv5.380@trndny07...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Naturally the FAA will want to come down hard on this guy. But that has
no bearing on whether they can take any action against him if he meets
the stated ASRS immunity conditions. (I hope for his sake that he submits
an ASRS report by the deadline.)

Well, they've done it before.

From AvWeb 11/13/03

TFRs, ASRS, And Avoiding Enforcement Action...

No, that article doesn't say they've done it before. The article does not
assert that any pilot who met the ASRS immunity conditions was denied
immunity for busting an ADIZ or FRZ. True, the article does quote an FAA
spokesperson as *guessing* that some pilots who filed ASRS reports "might"
have been denied immunity because they failed to get proper preflight
briefings (rather than because they failed to meet the stated immunity
conditions). But even if the quote is accurate (which is uncertain), all we
have is an implausible speculation by a random spokesperson; there is no
assertion (as opposed to a mere guess)--and certainly no evidence--that any
such denial of promised immunity has ever succeeded, or has even been
attempted, or that it could withstand judicial review.

--Gary

On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:34:53 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
::


From AvWeb 11/13/03

TFRs, ASRS, And Avoiding Enforcement Action...

No, that article doesn't say they've done it before. The article does not
assert that any pilot who met the ASRS immunity conditions was denied
immunity for busting an ADIZ or FRZ. True, the article does quote an FAA
spokesperson as *guessing* that some pilots who filed ASRS reports "might"
have been denied immunity because they failed to get proper preflight
briefings (rather than because they failed to meet the stated immunity
conditions). But even if the quote is accurate (which is uncertain), all we
have is an implausible speculation by a random spokesperson; there is no
assertion (as opposed to a mere guess)--and certainly no evidence--that any
such denial of promised immunity has ever succeeded, or has even been
attempted, or that it could withstand judicial review.

I assume you are referring to this part of the article:

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 that applies only to Part 121 and 135 -- not Part 91
operators.

Part 91 operators "can use whatever sources of weather and other
information they wish to meet the requirement of getting all the
information necessary for a safe flight," said Shumann. Concerned
Part 91 operators may feel more comfortable using only the
"official" sources listed above -- regardless of the type of
operation.

Actually, it says Part 91 operators needn't obtain a weather briefing
from official sources. Given it is being reported that the PIC did
not receive a weather briefing, he may still fall under the ASRS
immunity the way I read it.

Don't get me wrong. If the PIC did indeed freeze at the controls to
the point that the student had to land the aircraft, as is being
reported, he should have his certificate revoked, IMO.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Don't get me wrong. If the PIC did indeed freeze at the controls to
the point that the student had to land the aircraft, as is being
reported, he should have his certificate revoked, IMO.

Yup. *That* should certainly count as a Section 44709 exception to ASRS
immunity, as set forth in the written ASRS policy.

--Gary