ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

Recently, Gary Drescher posted:

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC
where there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

How do you know? A forensic examination of his hard drive might
confirm his statement.

I think that the matter of checking the weather is a very minor part of
these circumstances. One is not required to check weather in any
particular manner, and it doesn't appear that this pilot's flight path was
influenced by weather issues in any way. I don't even understand why the
FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Recently, Gary Drescher posted:

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC
where there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

How do you know? A forensic examination of his hard drive might
confirm his statement.

I think that the matter of checking the weather is a very minor part of
these circumstances. One is not required to check weather in any
particular manner, and it doesn't appear that this pilot's flight path was
influenced by weather issues in any way. I don't even understand why the
FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

Cops, federal or local, throw everything into the pot, then "cut the deck".
The schmucks lawyer, I think, was trying to provide an overall alibi to
deflect the overall air of negligence (or whatever the proper legalistic
jargon is).

Neil wrote:

I don't even understand why the
FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

Probably similar to the "Failure to keep right" (for those of us who
drive on the right) charge that police routinely stick on a driver
involved in an automobile accident where the driver's vehicle crossed
the divided line in the road.

But seriously, perhaps the real charge was something along the lines of
"failure to check all pertinant information including a standard
briefing," which some reporter took to mean failure to check weather.

--
Peter

Recently, Peter R. posted:

Neil wrote:

I don't even understand why the
FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

[...]

But seriously, perhaps the real charge was something along the lines
of "failure to check all pertinant information including a standard
briefing," which some reporter took to mean failure to check weather.

You're probably right, however, a standard briefing is also not required.
One is expected to have *the information* that may be given in a standard
briefing (if you ask the right questions), but that information is
available from a number of sources.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

One is expected to have *the information* that may be given in a standard
briefing (if you ask the right questions), but that information is
available from a number of sources.

And part of that information which one receives in a standard briefing for that
part of the country is the fact that an ADIZ exists over Washington, D.C.. It is
patently obvious that the PIC either did not get that information or chose to
ignore it. So the FAA charges him with failing to get the info and will sort it
out in the hearings.

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:nHIke.1316$5b.83@trndny04...
And part of that information which one receives in a standard briefing for
that part of the country is the fact that an ADIZ exists over Washington,
D.C.. It is patently obvious that the PIC either did not get that
information or chose to ignore it.

Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though he
knew where the ADIZ was.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though he
knew where the ADIZ was.

I'd be more likely to consider that a possibility if he were on anything other
than a direct course to his destination at the time.

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:kgJke.939$2b.301@trndny08...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though
he knew where the ADIZ was.

I'd be more likely to consider that a possibility if he were on anything
other than a direct course to his destination at the time.

If you think his course was intentional, you also have to conclude that he
didn't know about (or didn't care about) busting through the middle of the
Class B.

--Gary

Recently, George Patterson posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

One is expected to have *the information* that may be given in a
standard briefing (if you ask the right questions), but that
information is available from a number of sources.

And part of that information which one receives in a standard
briefing for that part of the country is the fact that an ADIZ exists
over Washington, D.C.. It is patently obvious that the PIC either did
not get that information or chose to ignore it. So the FAA charges
him with failing to get the info and will sort it out in the hearings.

The ADIZs also appear on the sectionals. Current charts *are* required,
and would be a lot more useful than someone on the phone saying "don't go
there" before you depart. No question that this pilot was unable to
navigate adequately, and it makes me wonder what his last BFR was like
(having just gone through that myself a few days ago).

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote
The ADIZs also appear on the sectionals. Current charts *are* required,

NO charts are required.....not even for IFR flight.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI