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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
He has to face all charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (- terrorism). Mens rea? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com... think one could argue that if they'd been shot down over DC, it would've adversely affected the safety of people on the ground. Agreed. But that isn't air commerce or transportation. I see your point, but I think it's plausible to construe the safety of air transportation to include the safety of those on whom a plane might fall, the safety of the (non-pilot) passenger, and even the safety of the PIC himself. --Gary |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mike Granby" wrote in message oups.com... If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets? According to the ASRS immunity policy (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they haven't been found to have committed another FAR violation within the past five years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be imposed. (I doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found to have violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.) There is nothing that's going to stop them from at least a 30 day suspension. There is NO way around this in the DC airspace viloations (most of which don't cause the "sky is falling" evacuation that attract news coverage). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in the previous five years? I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to avoid any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m... Gary Drescher wrote: Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in the previous five years? I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to avoid any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension. I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not binding. There've been many DC ADIZ violations. Are you aware of any instance in which a pilot met the ASRS immunity conditions, but the promised immunity was denied? --Gary |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... Gary Drescher wrote: According to the ASRS immunity policy (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they haven't been found to have committed another FAR violation within the past five years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be imposed. (I doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found to have violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.) There is nothing that's going to stop them from at least a 30 day suspension. There is NO way around this in the DC airspace viloations (most of which don't cause the "sky is falling" evacuation that attract news coverage). See my reply to your same point elsewhere in this thread. --Gary |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote: I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not binding. You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or conveniently redefining them to suit the moment. JKG |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
... In article , "Gary Drescher" wrote: I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not binding. You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or conveniently redefining them to suit the moment. I've read several cases that are popularly regarded as showing the FAA ignoring its own rules, but on close examination, I don't think that's what happened. In any case, abrogating an explicit promise of immunity would be an *extreme* violation of due process. I am unaware of any precedent for that, nor has anyone here cited one. --Gary |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
... I'm just saying that there need to be consequences, not that those consequences have to come from the FAA. It's not clear where else they could come from, though (except in terms of embarrassment, as you mention). Accidentally busting an ADIZ is not a crime, as far as I'm aware; the FBI has already announced that there are no criminal charges to be pressed. The reason people violate the ADIZ and prohibited areas, and bust airspace, and run out of fuel, is due to poor planning and/or judgment on the part of the pilots, The reports so far suggest that the pilot did plan to avoid the ADIZ, so his planning was not necessarily inadequate. Looks like he just got lost. What was probably lacking was his navigational skill, though even that isn't certain--being highly skilled makes elementary errors unlikely, but not impossible. --Gary |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... Thomas Borchert wrote: He has to face all charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (- terrorism). ^^^^^ sorry for my typo ... *arggl*, to late to supersede. Well, I may be a tad unfair, but frankly, I hope they carry him off to Gitmo yesterday... only unfair? to lose your civil rights? guilty unless proven unguilty? or what? *phew* #m -- http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg The patriot act (a misnomer if there ever was one) says you are guilty and have no chance to prove you are innocent. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Would a NASA form help? | Jesse Wright | Piloting | 51 | May 14th 05 07:25 PM |
NASA form use for someone else's event | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 4 | March 31st 05 01:50 PM |
Runway Incursion and NASA form | steve mew | Piloting | 0 | November 10th 03 05:37 AM |
Moving violation..NASA form? | Nasir | Piloting | 47 | November 5th 03 07:56 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |