ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

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.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

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.

Pete


Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the trigger...

Jay B

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:36:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote in fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01::

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

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?

Exactly my thought, Pete.

I guess if the FAA can apply 91.13 here, they can apply it practically
anywhere.

Pete


Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the trigger...

Jay B


There is that, and the danger the falling wreckage would have posed to
those on the ground. And the danger to the F-16 pilots attempting to
fly formation with the C-150. And the danger caused by the
stampeding bureaucrats. But wait a minute. Those dangers were caused
by the government weren't they? :-)

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01...
Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the
trigger...

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

Peter Duniho wrote:

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

If you fly into a war zone, the hazards are also not of your creation;
nevertheless, *you* will have placed all occupants of the plane in a hazardous
situation, and *you* are responsible.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:18:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

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?

Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
down, isn't endangering life or property of another?

In article ,
spam says...

Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
down, isn't endangering life or property of another?


No. That's preposterous.
I agree with Pete there's something disturbing about the application of
91.13. We always worry about "catch-all" rules, and that worry seems
partially justified.

I also find rather dubious that the chopper pilots placarded an unuseable
frequency for the wayward pilots to communicate on. Looks like there was more
than one blundering aircrew up there that day. This action arguably delayed a
resolution of the situation.

I think most pilots feel certificate action is appropriate - that's the
opinion I'm reading anyway - but "emergency revocation" may be a bit
heavy-handed, particularly considering the gov't crews were imperfect as
well, and came out with a bit of egg on their faces.

G Faris

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
spam says...

Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
down, isn't endangering life or property of another?

No. That's preposterous.

No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is
something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case here.

Could you explain why you disagree?

Thanks,
Gary

In article ,
says...



No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is
something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case here.

Could you explain why you disagree?


Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not engendered
buy the actions of the "offender". The lethal danger presented by the
actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a danger that is
controlled by experts in the interest of public safety, and as such not
a a danger to the public. If the police shoot at a fleeing bank robber,
and miss, do we charge the robber for attempted murder, because he could
have been killed?

G Faris

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is
something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case here.

Could you explain why you disagree?

Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not engendered
buy the actions of the "offender".

It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is certainly
engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action, that
particular danger would not be present.

The lethal danger presented by the
actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a danger that is
controlled by experts in the interest of public safety, and as such not
a danger to the public.

That doesn't follow at all. If government policy (correctly or mistakenly)
deems it *less* of an overall threat to safety to shoot down the plane than
to let it continue, that doesn't in any way imply that there's *no* danger
in shooting it down.

If the police shoot at a fleeing bank robber,
and miss, do we charge the robber for attempted murder, because he could
have been killed?

The issue here is reckless endangerment, not attempted murder.

If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a bystander,
the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death. The *foreseeable
possibility* of that consequence is one of the things the robber is
responsible for. There may or may not be a separate statute under which the
robber can be charged merely for posing that danger to himself or others
(even if the danger is not realized); but there *is* such a regulation with
regard to posing an analogous danger while flying.

--Gary