ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
restricted area he crossed.

A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
statement.


Not if he doesn't cache his history files.


I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history
files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history. Depending
on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a flight
briefing site.

Michael

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is
certainly
engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action,
that
particular danger would not be present.

Then we should blame Cessna too.

Bob, look up: contributory negligence.

Recently, Greg Farris posted:

[...] The lethal danger
presented by the actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a
danger that is controlled by experts in the interest of public
safety, and as such not a a danger to the public. If the police shoot
at a fleeing bank robber, and miss, do we charge the robber for
attempted murder, because he could have been killed?

Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of
the bystander that the police accidentally shot?

Neil

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:30:26 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in 6UGke.50$5b.48@trndny02::

Bob Noel wrote:
In article om,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:


No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
the bank robber will usually be charged.


charged with what?! not getting in the way of a bullet?

IIRC, in Tennessee the name of the charge is "felony murder", that is, murder
due directly or indirectly to the fact that you are committing a crime.


While that charge may be appropriate for the felonious example cited,
Hayden L. Sheaffer was not charged with any criminal offence, and FAA
orders are not laws.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ApGke.6$2b.2@trndny05...
Ron Natalie wrote:

Customs owns the blackhawks too. They're on loan to the DC area
security efforts. Helicopters are a bit more appropriate (if you're
not going to fire weapons) than jets for shooing away wayward light
planes.

Helicopters are fine even if you *are* going to fire weapons (though it is
to be
hoped that Customs doesn't own any "gunships").


They do, or they have them available on very short notice.

And since about ten years ago, all federal officers are armed, including
Depts. of Education, HHS, Agriculture...

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is
certainly
engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action,
that
particular danger would not be present.

Then we should blame Cessna too.

Bob, look up: contributory negligence.

nah, I was suitably informed by Gary's reply.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
restricted area he crossed.

Not if his navigation was so bad that he simply didn't know where he was.

IIRC from his statement, he was so focused on Camp David that he missed the
DC ADIZ. That doesn't seem plausible, only a childish excuse.


The alternative explanation is that he not only didn't know about the ADIZ
(which hardly requires an up-to-the-minute briefing), but also didn't know
about the Class B that he was busting.

Does that sound like someone who got a briefing, via either DUATS/FSS or
some web site? I do all mine via the net and seldom on DUATS but I've never

A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
statement.

Not if he doesn't cache his history files.

And you know that he doesn't? Besides, that's not even true. Unless you go
out of your way to securely wipe your drive's free space (and often even
if
you do), recoverable traces of your browsing remain.

It's not that I don't know it, but that the attorney probably doesn't, which
is hy he concoted the story, or certainly doesn;t expect they to go to such
investigative lengths over such a "trivial" matter.

You can stop trying to show off your investigatory/geeky prowess now.

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

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
restricted area he crossed.

A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
statement.


Not if he doesn't cache his history files.


I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history
files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history.
Depending
on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a flight
briefing site.

Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer.

Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Not if his navigation was so bad that he simply didn't know where he was.

IIRC from his statement, he was so focused on Camp David that he missed
the
DC ADIZ. That doesn't seem plausible, only a childish excuse.

His statement did not address whether he knew where he was (but didn't know
the ADIZ was there), or knew where the ADIZ was (but didn't know he was
there).

It's not that I don't know it,

Well, that was my only point--we have no basis for impugning his claim that
he obtained a briefing, and he may even be able to prove it (if he cares
to).

--Gary