ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

Recently, Gary Drescher posted:

"Matt Barrow" 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.

How do you know? A forensic examination of his hard drive might
confirm his statement.

I think that the matter of checking the weather is a very minor part of
these circumstances. One is not required to check weather in any
particular manner, and it doesn't appear that this pilot's flight path was
influenced by weather issues in any way. I don't even understand why the
FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

Neil

On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.

Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

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).

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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


"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.

Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

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).

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"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.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

I guess if the FAA can apply 91.13 here, they can apply it practically
anywhere.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

I guess if the FAA can apply 91.13 here, they can apply it practically
anywhere.

Pete


Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the trigger...

Jay B

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:36:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote in fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01::

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

Exactly my thought, Pete.

I guess if the FAA can apply 91.13 here, they can apply it practically
anywhere.

Pete


Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the trigger...

Jay B


There is that, and the danger the falling wreckage would have posed to
those on the ground. And the danger to the F-16 pilots attempting to
fly formation with the C-150. And the danger caused by the
stampeding bureaucrats. But wait a minute. Those dangers were caused
by the government weren't they? :-)

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01...
Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the
trigger...

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

Peter Duniho wrote:

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

If you fly into a war zone, the hazards are also not of your creation;
nevertheless, *you* will have placed all occupants of the plane in a hazardous
situation, and *you* are responsible.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:18:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
[...]
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
down, isn't endangering life or property of another?