ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"Roger" 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.

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased)
and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


He didn't use DUATS...he said he used something like the Weather Channel.

I doubt he was aware that even if erased a disk can be read. If he WAS
aware, I think his lawyer was figuring that doing a disk recovery would be
major overkill.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Roger wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
only one that officially counts.


Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web site.
IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete disk
recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial case
such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
dodge against a negligence action.

I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather, TAFs,
maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Roger wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
only one that officially counts.


Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web site.
IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete disk
recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial case
such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
dodge against a negligence action.

I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather, TAFs,
maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

That won't do you much good in a legal battle; only DUATS or a call to
FS is an official CYA.

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in
message
...

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.

I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's
findings.
They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
forensic study.

Sigh....

Schaeffer (?) and the lawyer were expecting their claim of having
checked
the information via the internet and using non-recorded use history
would
cover his ass from a charge of negligence. They expected this claim to
"fly" (sorry), and expected that the feds would not tear apart
Schaeffers
PC
(if they even considered THAT possibility).

Like I'd said earlier; it's akin to "the check was mailed two weeks ago,
but
I didn't send it registered mail".

That's possible, but if that is part of defense's strategy he needs a new
lawyer. I don't believe the attorney thinks for a minute that, in the
absence of proof, the FAA will be the least bit impressed by the claim to
have used the internet to get any form of briefing.

For a criminal charge, probably they won't; to deflect a negligence action
though...

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

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Roger
wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).


Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's
the
only one that officially counts.


Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web
site.
IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete
disk
recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial
case
such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
dodge against a negligence action.

I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather,
TAFs,
maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

That won't do you much good in a legal battle; only DUATS or a call to
FS is an official CYA.

It depends if the battle was a criminal action or a negligence action.

I'd rather have the actual DOCUMENTS than just a log that said I did in fact
call for a briefing. And yes, I can print from DUATS, but until recently
(IIRC) all you could do was screen dumps. I don't know when they changed,
but I remember when all you could do was accesss them from a dumb terminal
and printing was impossible.

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??).

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

Matt Barrow wrote:

I'd rather have the actual DOCUMENTS than just a log that said I did in fact
call for a briefing. And yes, I can print from DUATS, but until recently
(IIRC) all you could do was screen dumps. I don't know when they changed,
but I remember when all you could do was accesss them from a dumb terminal
and printing was impossible.

If you access the raw text service with telnet, and use any of the modern
terminal emulators, you can easily get a text file that you can browse with your
favorite text editor, print, run post-processing filters, etc...

("RST Engineering" wrote)
wine to dance on Jay Honeck's wing with Mary Natalie.

Um, that would be MARGIE Natalie. Dancing in two-step with Mary Honeck.


With Mary Natalie and Margy Honeck there's the sticky conundrum - who gets
the Navion and who gets the Pathfinder?

The Jay and Ron problem will simply have to work itself out.


Montblack

Blueskies wrote:

Think about this folks....Customs patrols the borders where the ADIZ is supposed to be...our gov't is so confused that
it thinks it has a country inside our country, thus the ADIZ around DC.

Well, as alienated as most of the politicos seem to be getting from the
mainstream population, I'd say this is a fair assumption. How long do you think
it'll be before we need passports to go there?

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'.

Matt Barrow wrote:

I was thinking of the feds.

I doubt the Feds care one bit. If the pilot was that unaware of the ADIZ, it
doesn't matter what tools he used, he did not get an adequate briefing. Weather
is only a part of it.

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'.

Gary Drescher wrote:

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.

Yep, sure do. I think he snaked through the old VFR corridor years ago and was
planning to do the same thing this 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'.