ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

so what do you guys think of it?

Sounds like, all the hysteria and other issues aside, the pilot really
screwed the pooch on many basic levels.

-c
HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
it's restricted airspace?

"gatt" wrote in message
...

so what do you guys think of it?

Sounds like, all the hysteria and other issues aside, the pilot really
screwed the pooch on many basic levels.

-c
HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
it's restricted airspace?

I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction. A year off to think
about it sounds fair and proper.

Dean Wilkinson wrote:
HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
it's restricted airspace?

I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction. A year off to think
about it sounds fair and proper.


NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student will get
to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the controls, the
private pilot was the pilot in command.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Dean Wilkinson wrote:
HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
it's restricted airspace?

I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction. A year off to think
about it sounds fair and proper.


NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student will
get
to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the controls, the
private pilot was the pilot in command.

But does he get to log the time as PIC?

;-) ;-) ;-)

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student
will get to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the
controls, the private pilot was the pilot in command.

But does he get to log the time as PIC?

And did he mail that letter to NASA within 24 hours?

Dean Wilkinson wrote:

I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction.

I don't know of any instructors who have done this.

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'.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:54:34 -0700, "gatt"
wrote:


so what do you guys think of it?

Sounds like, all the hysteria and other issues aside, the pilot really
screwed the pooch on many basic levels.

Their side of the story is at
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1

The FAA says "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,
Pennsylvania, and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which
informs pilots of airspace restrictions."

They say they "checked various weather websites on his home computer
for the flight area and consulted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) website, looking for Temporary Flight Restrictions
(TFR). "

Course, none of it's recorded since they didn't use DUAT(S) so...

In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:


Their side of the story is at
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1


As I read through the above I kept thinking more and mo despite the
first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like words
_very_ carefully crafted by an attorney. And sure enough, at the bottom:

"A principal in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Joseph, McDermott &
Reiner, P.C., Mark T. McDermott is engaged in general practice with
an emphasis on litigation, aviation law, and pilot medical
certification. . . . McDermott has been retained by Jim Sheaffer
to represent him in the FAA's investigation of this matter."

AES wrote:

As I read through the above I kept thinking more and mo despite the
first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like words
_very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.

Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

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'.

Recently, George Patterson posted:

AES wrote:

As I read through the above I kept thinking more and mo despite
the first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like
words _very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.

Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by the
authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at gunpoint,
this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.

Neil