ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

("George Patterson" 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?

The minute the F-16s were scrambled.


Speaking of reporters (as happens around here from time to time)
.....wouldn't it be interesting if some young enterprising cub reporter went
out and found those flares?


Montblack

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:zrKke.1146$rr.401@fed1read01...
While there can be little doubt that one F16 (let alone two) would be
overkill to take down a C150, perhaps it's SOP to launch the two alert
aircraft regardless of the actual nature of the threat and once airborne,
they are tasked with seeing the prosecution of the target through to a
specific conclusion?

Well, my point wasn't to claim that the mere launching of a pair of F16s was
the problem. It's the idea that the F16s are used in a threatening "we're
going to shoot you down" capacity. F16s can be used for other purposes, not
all of which involve a hazard to the life and/or property of others.

So, I agree with what I think your implication is: that just sending F16s
out isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it's not the use of F16s per se that
I'm talking about. It's how they were used, and how that applies to the
accusation of a violation of 91.13.

Pete

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Recently, Bucky posted:

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
guns blazing.

Call your local police department and ask them if they know a better way.

When they get done laughing, let us know what they said.

Why not just have a regulation that says "it is a violation of this
regulation to violate any other regulation in the FARs"?

Well, that's not the purpose of 91.13. It's more like "it is a
violation of this regulation to abide by all the FARs and =still= do
something we don't like".

Jose
r.a.owning and r.a.student trimmed
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
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.


Which is why his legal team must mount the "Miracle on 34th Street" defense:

"We intend to prove there really is a Santa Clause Your Honor"

They need to make the case about the FAA, Homeland Security, TSA, the Media,
etc. But what do I know about legal matters? I thought OJ did it


Montblack
"But... but maybe he's only a little crazy like painters or composers or...
or some of those men in Washington." - Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no
evidence
is
found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of
computer
activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that
showed
he
visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend
on
attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.

True.

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an expert
"consultant".

I was thinking of the feds.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
First of all, deadly force has NEVER been used. It's not authorized per
se, though the government does repeatedly claim that they WILL authorize
deadly force. It's hard to imagine a pilot seriously believing that the
government will shoot down a C150 until it actually happens.

At a minimum, it's been clearly threatened by the government. Reasonable
persons may doubt that the threat will be carried out, but they must at
least take the possiblity seriously, I think.

In this case, the pilot is being accused of intentionally endangering the
life or property of someone else, when in fact the pilot did no such
thing.

No, not at all--91.13 says nothing about *intentional* endagerment. The
pilot is accused of having *carelessly or recklessly* endangered others, by
failing to take the degree of caution called for by flight near the ADIZ,
given the known possibility of being shot down if you wander into the FRZ.

Using the broad interpretation of the language of that regulation that the
FAA uses, as well as those defending the charge, 91.13 would apply to
practically any violation of any FAR. After all, practically all of the
regulations are designed for the purpose of providing safety to the life
or property of others. A violation of any other regulation could be
construed as a de facto violation of 91.13 under that interpretation.

It's impossible to anticipate and enumerate all the ways that operating a
vehicle might be careless or reckless. That's why motor-vehicle laws, as
well as aviation regulations, have a miscellaneous "careless and reckless"
provision. Even though there's no FAR specifically prohibiting "flying in a
populated area where the government says they'll shoot you down", it strikes
me as a clear-cut example of being careless or reckless.

Why not just have a regulation that says "it is a violation of this
regulation to violate any other regulation in the FARs"?

The use of 91.13 strikes me as justified when there is some specific aspect
of the situation (such as the known risk here of getting shot down) that
clearly constitutes careless and reckless endangerment, and when that
specific aspect is not covered by another FAR (regardless of whether or not
some *other* aspects of the situation violate some other FARs).

--Gary

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot
if no evidence is found by the gov't and explain why lack
of evidence is not proof of computer activity. It would
be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed
he visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would
probably depend on attacking the expert and/or the forensic
methodology.

True.

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort
in a case such as this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will
probably hire an expert "consultant".

I was thinking of the feds.

Wait, what Michael was just speaking of (when you replied "True") is how
difficult it would be for the feds to contest the defense's evidence if an
expert examination of the computer showed that the pilot *did* obtain the
briefing.

So you're asking now if the feds would bother to try to contest that kind of
evidence? Presumably not, since they would have no realistic prospect of
succeeding, unless the examination had been incompetent.

--Gary

Care to cite your reference for this statement?

Jim



Current charts *are* required

I'd appreciate knowing where this quotation came from.

Jim



" "failure to check all pertinant information including a standard
briefing,"