ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

What did they do that abides by all the FARs, but which was still something
the FAA didn't like?

I don't know. I was not standing up for the =use= of the careless or
reckless rule, rather explaining how (IMHO) it is intended to be used.

I would speculate that the FAA didn't like (or rather, were I the FAA, I
wouldn't like) his taking a student pilot on such a spree, and having
him fly the plane. I don't like it in =this= case for a few reasons:

1: It imbues the student with a poor impression of aviation (the good
lessons the student may take away from this are a byproduct - it might
not have turned out this way). This increases the chance that the
student will learn to be careless and get away with it, at least for a
while.

2: It makes it easier for the pilot to become a passenger on his own
flight, and thus effectively abdicate the C role of being PIC.

None of these things are illegal, and on a different flight these things
might not even be an issue. They shouldn't be prohibited per se. But
on this flight it might well be considered careless or reckless, and the
FAA may use the careless or reckless rule to cover those acts.

An aside... "careless or reckless" sounds like "sort of bad, or very
bad". I don't know how one can be reckless but not careless. With the
"or" as a conjunction, "careless or reckless" can be reduced to
"careless" and come out the same. No?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
I don't know. I was not standing up for the =use= of the careless or
reckless rule, rather explaining how (IMHO) it is intended to be used.

Well, my comments are only directed at how the rule IS used, not how some
theoretical rule-writer intends it to be used. I don't see what relevance
comments about the theoretical intent have to my own comments, at least not
with respect to refuting them.

[...] I don't like it in =this= case for a few reasons:

1: It imbues the student with a poor impression of aviation (the good
lessons the student may take away from this are a byproduct - it might not
have turned out this way). This increases the chance that the student
will learn to be careless and get away with it, at least for a while.

Hazard to life or property? No.

2: It makes it easier for the pilot to become a passenger on his own
flight, and thus effectively abdicate the C role of being PIC.

Hazard to life or property? No.

In other words, from a legal standpoint the mere fact that the FAA might
agree with you regarding whether they like the actions for the above reasons
is insufficient for the purpose of charging the pilot with a violation of
91.13

None of these things are illegal, and on a different flight these things
might not even be an issue. They shouldn't be prohibited per se. But on
this flight it might well be considered careless or reckless, and the FAA
may use the careless or reckless rule to cover those acts.

They have no legal basis for doing so.

An aside... "careless or reckless" sounds like "sort of bad, or very bad".
I don't know how one can be reckless but not careless. With the "or" as a
conjunction, "careless or reckless" can be reduced to "careless" and come
out the same. No?

I think from a strict dictionary point of view, no. I agree that we often
use the words as synonyms of different degree, but literally speaking
"careless" implies a certain lack of conscious consideration without
implying intentional disregard of safety, while "reckless" implies a certain
knowing disregard of safety without implying a lack of conscious
consideration. That is, reckless could describe a person who thought
through the consequences, and acted dangerously anyway while careless could
describe a person who failed to think through the consequences, and never
really intended to act dangerously (but did anyway). A person can be both
careless AND reckless, but they can also be just one or the other as well.

Pete

Gary Drescher wrote:

I see what you mean. Still, he ended up plowing through the middle of the
25-mile-wide Class B surface area, far from any Class E airspace. Or did
there use to be a corridor right there in the middle?

There used to be a corridor in the middle.

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:8H6le.111$zb.59@trndny01...
Gary Drescher wrote:

I see what you mean. Still, he ended up plowing through the middle of the
25-mile-wide Class B surface area, far from any Class E airspace. Or did
there use to be a corridor right there in the middle?

There used to be a corridor in the middle.

Thanks, I hadn't known that. Now I better understand what you suspect the
pilot was doing.

--Gary

So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011 into
the glades because of a lightbulb???
"A.Coleman" wrote in message
. ..

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...&sn=018&sc=478

AA Revokes License of D.C. 'Alert' Pilot
-
Monday, May 23, 2005

(05-23) 12:15 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small
plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11,
forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive
mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.

Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's
restricted
airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an
emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he
"constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."

The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who
was
also in the plane.

"This action reflects the seriousness in which we view all restricted
airspace violations and, in this case, the level of incursion into
restricted airspace," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

The plane entered restricted airspace and then continued flying toward
highly sensitive areas, prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of
people
as military aircraft scrambled to intercept it.

The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of
flight
time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S.
Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted it.

Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
operating an aircraft, the FAA said. He failed to check the weather report
before leaving Smoketown, Pa., and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to
Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.

___

On the Net:

Federal Aviation Administration:

www.faa.gov
URL:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...a121517D16.DTL
©2005 Associated Press

"Franklin Newton" wrote in message
.net...
So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
into
the glades because of a lightbulb???

Apples and oranges.

Not taking basic skills along for the ride was a basic mistake.

Stuffing a L1011 was the usual accident chain of events, failing to be
broken, at a million opportunities. Not dumb. Unfortunate.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Franklin Newton" wrote in message
.net...
So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to
folks,
dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
into
the glades because of a lightbulb???

Apples and oranges.

Not taking basic skills along for the ride was a basic mistake.

Stuffing a L1011 was the usual accident chain of events, failing to be
broken, at a million opportunities. Not dumb. Unfortunate.
--
Jim in NC

Absolutley the same.
Fly the airplane, Fly the airplane, Fly the airplane, the first and most
important basic skill to bring along, otherwise you may not need the rest!

Franklin Newton wrote:
So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011 into
the glades because of a lightbulb???

Yep. We *really* don't want to see what he could accomplish with an L1011.

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'.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

snip

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't
"Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

Site?


Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on
the
screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.


Which is why I print everything.

"Franklin Newton" wrote in message
.net...
So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
into
the glades because of a lightbulb???

Non-sequitur.