![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Any disreputable forensic analyzer that doesn't know how to dummy up
"evidence" of a surfing visit to any particular site isn't going to stay in their dirty business long. Jim I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history. Depending on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a flight briefing site. Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer. Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim wrote:
I'd appreciate knowing where this quotation came from. It came from my rather hurried attempt to string together the logic a reporter may have followed to report that this pilot is being cited for not "checking the weather," amongst other charges. To follow along: FARs state it is a pilot's responsibility to obtain all pertinent information in preparation for a flight... one contribution to this is for the pilot to get a standard briefing... a standard briefing contains a lot of weather information.... pilot never obtained a recorded standard briefing (if the FAA is to be believed)... reporter incorrectly concludes that pilot never checked the weather... How'd I do? :-) -- Peter |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:17:04 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in :: wouldn't it be interesting if some young enterprising cub reporter went out and found those flares? The flares are designed to burnout before reaching the ground. The only evidence left on the ground of them having been deployed would the their plastic end caps. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not as well as I had hoped. {;-)
Where did you get the notion that a "standard briefing" (whatever that is and wherever defined in regulation) contains weather information. The pertinent regulation (91.103) requires INFORMATION; no mention is made of "briefing". It requires weather information IF the flight is not "in the vicinity of AN airport". It doesn't say the LAUNCHING or LANDING airport, just AN airport. And what is "vicinity"? Gliding distance? Range of the aircraft? Vicinity is one of those "not defined here" terms that make Hawaiian vacations for lawyers possible. Jim To follow along: FARs state it is a pilot's responsibility to obtain all pertinent information in preparation for a flight... one contribution to this is for the pilot to get a standard briefing... a standard briefing contains a lot of weather information.... pilot never obtained a recorded standard briefing (if the FAA is to be believed)... reporter incorrectly concludes that pilot never checked the weather... How'd I do? :-) |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Neil Gould wrote:
Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at gunpoint". I can't come up with any counter-arguments because apparently you think being spread-eagled at gunpoint is the worst thing that can happen to a person. There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed Like what? Asking them if they were armed? Having them walk through a metal detector? Let's say you were a cop who just caught a suspected drug dealer driving a stolen car. How would you approach him? You'd point your gun at him and tell him to get down on the ground with his hands behind his head. Otherwise, he might just reach for a weapon. Well, at that point in time, they didn't know who these two guys were, they could have been drug dealers, terrorists, mental patients, or just two clueless pilots. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim wrote:
Where did you get the notion that a "standard briefing" (whatever that is and wherever defined in regulation) contains weather information. Ha... why do I get the feeling that is this a piece of cheese attached to a bar holding back a spring-powered hammer? The pertinent regulation (91.103) requires INFORMATION; no mention is made of "briefing". I certainly agree and my intention was not to imply that that the regulation requires a briefing. Instead I was envisioning how the process might have been explained to a reporter. -- Peter |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:48:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote: "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... [...] If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a bystander, the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death. I have never heard of any court coming to that conclusion. Can you direct me to a legal precedent that supports your statement? That is, a case where a shot fired at a criminal was deemed to have been caused by the criminal, and where the criminal was found in violation of a criminal or civil law against causing a death? http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/005055.html ? |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Michael 182 wrote: 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. I think the point is moot. Unless you are connecting to DUATS through AOPA, I don't think they are an official source of NOTAM information. As I understand previous rulings by the FAA courts and NTSB, you're not protected unless you got your NOTAM info from either DUATS or a FSS briefer (both of which are recorded). If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight? One case that I know of personally was a pilot that relied on a 3rd party airport guide for his info rather than the official facilities directory. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com... Michael 182 wrote: 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. I think the point is moot. Unless you are connecting to DUATS through AOPA, I don't think they are an official source of NOTAM information. As I understand previous rulings by the FAA courts and NTSB, you're not protected unless you got your NOTAM info from either DUATS or a FSS briefer (both of which are recorded). Can you cite those rulings, please? I can readily believe that you might assume the *burden of proof* that you obtained a briefing from another source. But that's very different from saying that another source doesn't count even if you *meet* the burden of proof. If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight? If your source includes then same information that DUATS or FSS is offering, then of course you have. --Gary |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Gary Drescher wrote: Can you cite those rulings, please? I can readily believe that you might assume the *burden of proof* that you obtained a briefing from another source. But that's very different from saying that another source doesn't count even if you *meet* the burden of proof. No I can't. I got that impression from various articles I'd read over the years, and the fact that a pilot I knew was actually dinged for having used a 3rd party airport guide, rather than the Facilities Directory. The violation for not using the AF/D was not the main violation. They got him for busting a class B and tacked the 91.103 violation on when the investigation revealed he'd used it instead of the official source. The 3rd party guide did not contain any incorrect info, nor did it contribute in any way to the class B aispace bust. Of course, this is now all anecdotal, since I haven't got a case number and haven't seen this particular guy in about 10 years, so take it for what it's worth. Some crap I heard on the internet :-)) John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight? If your source includes then same information that DUATS or FSS is offering, then of course you have. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long) | Jimbob | Owning | 17 | March 1st 05 03:01 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Older Pilots and Safety | Bob Johnson | Soaring | 5 | May 21st 04 01:08 AM |
UK pilots - please help by completeing a questionnaire | Chris Nicholas | Soaring | 0 | September 15th 03 01:44 PM |