A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old May 24th 05, 09:27 PM
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 24th 05, 09:34 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 24th 05, 09:41 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 24th 05, 09:58 PM
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 24th 05, 10:05 PM
Bucky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 24th 05, 10:30 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 24th 05, 11:07 PM
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 24th 05, 11:09 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old May 24th 05, 11:24 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old May 24th 05, 11:42 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.