Would a NASA form help?

"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