Would a NASA form help?

Gary Drescher wrote:

The written immunity policy does not provide for any exception concerning
ADIZs.

No, things work the other way 'round. The rules about the ADIZ provide for an
exception to the immunity policy. Violate it, you get a suspension.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:E2Vge.4953$1f5.4341@trndny01...
Gary Drescher wrote:

The written immunity policy does not provide for any exception concerning
ADIZs.

No, things work the other way 'round. The rules about the ADIZ provide for
an exception to the immunity policy. Violate it, you get a suspension.

If the government explicitly says "I promise you immunity from sanctions if
you meet conditions A, B, C", and you go ahead and meet conditions A, B, C,
then the government can't turn around and say "But wait! We've also decided
that there's an exception unless you also meet condition D, so we're going
ahead and imposing sanctions". That would just be a blatant violation of the
stated promise; if they could get away with that, then immunity promises
would be meaningless. And as I pointed out, our legal system depends heavily
on the integrity of immunity promises. It's not something the courts would
allow the government to abandon just to impose a minor penalty on some
pilot. So it's not surprising that no one has been able to cite an actual
example where an ASRS immunity promise was broken (due to an accidental ADIZ
incursion, or for any other reason).

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

If the government explicitly says "I promise you immunity from sanctions if
you meet conditions A, B, C", and you go ahead and meet conditions A, B, C,
then the government can't turn around and say "But wait! We've also decided
that there's an exception unless you also meet condition D, so we're going
ahead and imposing sanctions".

Of course it can.

That would just be a blatant violation of the
stated promise; if they could get away with that, then immunity promises
would be meaningless.

So?

And as I pointed out, our legal system depends heavily
on the integrity of immunity promises.

This is not our legal system. This is the TSA giving orders to the FAA.

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'.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Ew4he.422$mv5.82@trndny07...
This is not our legal system. This is the TSA giving orders to the FAA.

Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial
review.

What puzzles me is why you think the government is simultaneously so blasé
about the incursion that they don't even press any criminal charges, yet so
determined that they would try to jettison due process by abrogating a
legally binding ASRS promise of immunity merely in order to impose a minor
administrative penalty.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
If the government explicitly says "I promise you immunity from
sanctions if
you meet conditions A, B, C", and you go ahead and meet conditions A,
B, C,
then the government can't turn around and say "But wait! We've also
decided
that there's an exception unless you also meet condition D, so we're
going
ahead and imposing sanctions". That would just be a blatant violation
of the
stated promise; if they could get away with that, then immunity
promises
would be meaningless. And as I pointed out, our legal system depends
heavily
on the integrity of immunity promises. It's not something the courts
would
allow the government to abandon just to impose a minor penalty on
some
pilot. So it's not surprising that no one has been able to cite an
actual
example where an ASRS immunity promise was broken (due to an
accidental ADIZ
incursion, or for any other reason).

I don't know if it's true that ASRS immunity isn't available for ADIZ
incursions -- but just because it isn't, that doesn't mean a promise is
being broken. Due process is only being interfered with if they change
the rules after the fact. The ASRS immunity policy lays out specific
exceptions beforehand, one of them being that the action in question
didn't disclose "a lack of qualification or competency."

IMO, being so lost that someone ends up 3 miles from the White House
shows a lack of qualification or competency. The immunity policy
references 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44709, and that says that the FAA
Administrator can make that decision after an investigation or a
re-examination.

So there's no blatant violation of the stated promise. The stated
promise is that you get immunity if you file a report, and your action
didn't fall under several specific exceptions.

(Admittedly, wouldn't most mistakes that could get your certificate
revoked show some lack of qualification or competancy? I don't know
what the standard is for the FAA to decide you need a re-examination.)

The links to the ASRS immunity policy and 49 U.S.C. Sec 44709:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...9----000-.html

Charles.
-N8385U

Gary Drescher wrote:

Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial
review.

And if the FAA doesn't like the results of that review, they take it to the
NTSB, who will almost always overrule the judge.

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'.

"Charles O'Rourke" wrote in message
ups.com...
(Admittedly, wouldn't most mistakes that could get your certificate
revoked show some lack of qualification or competancy? I don't know
what the standard is for the FAA to decide you need a re-examination.)

Yes, this was discussed under the "Cessna over DC--NASA Form?" thread. The
thing is that Section 44709 only permits certificate action if a pilot is
reasonable judged to be unable to fly safely in the *future*. It can't be
used to impose a punishment or deterrent. So at worst, it could be invoked
here to require some remedial navigational training.

--Gary

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ea5he.93$n95.6@trndny08...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Until there's a coup d'etat, the FAA's actions are subject to judicial
review.

And if the FAA doesn't like the results of that review, they take it to
the NTSB, who will almost always overrule the judge.

Overrule the judge? Are you claiming that the NTSB is exempt from oversight
by the judiciary?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
Yes, this was discussed under the "Cessna over DC--NASA Form?"
thread. The
thing is that Section 44709 only permits certificate action if a
pilot is
reasonable judged to be unable to fly safely in the *future*. It
can't be
used to impose a punishment or deterrent. So at worst, it could be
invoked
here to require some remedial navigational training.

Right, but if the FAA can impose some remedial navigational training
(or other such re-examination), doesn't that specifically fall under
the ASRS immunity exceptions? So in other words, the re-examination
under Section 44709 isn't the punishment, but the fact that it happens
removes your ASRS immunity and leaves you open to the possibility of
certificate action.

I guess the easiest way to figure this out would be to find some
FAA/court decision where a pilot filed an ASRS form but still was
punished because his action fell under one of the exceptions. I'll
look around.

Charles.
-N8385U

Gary Drescher wrote:

Overrule the judge? Are you claiming that the NTSB is exempt from oversight
by the judiciary?

Absolutely.

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'.