ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"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

Paul kgyy wrote:
What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
government against a C150? Threaten them with loss of duty free
privileges????????????????

Customs owns the blackhawks too. They're on loan to the DC area
security efforts. Helicopters are a bit more appropriate (if you're
not going to fire weapons) than jets for shooing away wayward light
planes.

Denny wrote:
Interested folks need to read Mr. Sheaffer's issued statement, reported
on AVWEB and AOPA....

denny

Mr. Sheaffer's statement was issued by his attorney (not a bad idea) and
should be taken with a LARGE amount of skepticism.

xyzzy wrote:


AOPA has said that Sheaffer is not an instructor, if correct Troy Martin
was not "his student" he was merely a passenger (legally anyway)


Right, "a student" not "his student" would be a more appropriate word.

Dave S wrote:
keep in mind this is an "Emergency Revocation".

The pilot involved still is entitled to his due process, and the action
MAY (we are talking hypothetically, here) be overturned at the
completion of that due process.


There is NO due process in FAA actions, emergency or otherwise.

Dave S wrote:
I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
He has not had that yet.

Dave

Nobody gets a fair trial before the FAA.
You have to spend years and mucho dollars before you ever
get to a real judge.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Dave S wrote:

I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
He has not had that yet.


Dave


A trial in this case would be an appeal to the NTSB.

No a trial would be appearing before a bona fide member of the
judiciary, which you are not elligible for until after the NTSB
has ruled (and the FAA has either ignored the ruling if it was in
your favor, or the NTSB rubber stamps the sham process as it was).

George Patterson wrote:

* FAR 99.7. Operated the aircraft in an air defense identification
zone (ADIZ) without complying with special security instructions issued
by the administrator in the interest of national security and that are
consistent with appropriate agreements between the FAA and the
Department of Defense.

I can't see how 99.7 applies here. The DC Area ADIZ doeesn't meet the
applicability standards of Part 99 despite the fact that it shares the
acronym with the airspace of that part.

Peter Duniho 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?

If he had been shot down over DC it would have been dangerous to those
on the ground :-)

They could also write him up for failure to maintain a safe altitude
over a congested area as well.

In article ,
says...


If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a bystander,
the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.

You make a good point.
On the other hand, if law enforcement creates a danger where none existed
previously, the reckless endangerment seems like a stretch. When police
chase after a car thief, and an accident ensues, the police may be held
responsible, if we assume the thief only meant to steal the car, and not
harm anyone or anything. Now if you want to argue that this is a "special
circumstance" due to the post-9/11 environment, and as such law enforcement
could not safely assume the small plane represented no danger . . .


Greg