Attorney Secures 20% Reduction In ADIZ Violation Penalty For Sheaffer

Larry Dighera wrote:
At least Sheaffer will presumably have to pass written and practical
examinations before he flies again. If he is able to find a DE
willing to sign him off, he'll probably be sharp enough for us to
comfortably share the skies with. From what I've seen/read, he seems
of average intelligence, and lacked recent flight experience for
several years.

In fact, one of the dozen things the FAA actually charged him with was
flying a pax w/o currency. The fact that no one has a $200 GPS
surprised me. Either that or they had one and didn't know how to read
it.

-Robert

On 18 Jun 2005 12:03:17 -0700, wrote in
.com::

Larry,

I've got to respectfully disagree with the title of this thread.

You're right. The title should have stated 17% not 20%, as two is
~17% of 12 months. But that's not what you meant.

The attorney was able to negotiate only a tiny reduction in the
penalty,

It looks like a 17% penalty reduction to me. But I know what you're
getting at.

the guy still got the FAA's version of the death penalty,
revocation.

That's true.

That means all certificates and ratings are gone.

That would be his Private Pilot certificate.

The only thing the guy keeps is his flying time. It's not like a
suspension where he gets his certificate back after a certain period of
time. He has to take the written and practical tests all over again.

In this case, I don't feel a suspension would have been adequate to
assure that Sheaffer would be sufficiently retrained to be a competent
airman.

I agree, that certificate revocation would be an unduly harsh
punishment if it were a matter of policy for ADIZ violations, however
given Sheaffer's decision in this case to carry a passenger without
being in compliance with FAR § 61.57 Recent Flight Experience, and
alleged us of a pre 9/11 chart indicates that he needs to be
retrained.

If Sheaffer had appealed, perhaps he would have had a better chance of
reducing his penalty. But I'll bet his attorney felt Sheaffer needed
the in depth refreshing retesting would assure, and steered him in the
'right' direction.

With the intelligence he demonstrated on TV, it's doubtful he'll be
able to pass either one.

I agree. That's why I feel the certificate revocation is appropriate
in this case. If he has lost his ability to pass the tests, he
shouldn't be flying.

The attorney was able to get the time he has
to wait before starting that process reduced by two months. Big deal.
That's not unusual at all; had the guy been negotiating for himself, he
probably could have gotten that sort of deal.

I agree. The attorney fees didn't buy Sheaffer anything significant.

Had the FAA been in the
mood to negotiate at all, they'd have dropped the thing to a very long
suspension, but they weren't and they didn't.

And, although I hate to see a precedent set for violations of this
airspace, in this case certificate revocation seems appropriate.

What has to be kept in mind is that this guy screwed up, but his screw
up was probably not intentional, just monumentally stupid/ignorant
given the airspace involved.

A pilot who fails to look at a current chart during flight planning is
a menace to flight safety. That omission alone qualifies him as
lacking the prudence required of a pilot operating in today's NAS,
IMO.

I don't know if he filed an ASRS report.
If he did, there is a pretty good chance that he could have used it as
a get out of jail free card. The FAA may have been in a box in that it
might have had a hard time proving that one of the violations of which
the guy was accused was intentional and therefore he couldn't use the
ASRS immunity.

I believe Gary Drescher was arguing the same point.

My guess would be, that Sheaffer is so uninformed as to be unaware
that ASRS reports even exist!

A civil penalty (fine) was probably not an option under the procedures
in the regs, especially where the max penalty is $1,100 per occurrence
(I still don't know how many regs the guy was accused of violating) so
the total dollar amount wouldn't have been all that high.

A the added expense of a fine may have given Sheaffer motivation to
continue with his appeal instead of accepting the certificate
revocation.

A revocation is a much nastier sanction.

Agreed.

The only tougher sanction the FAA can give is if an airplane is used in
conjunction with an illegal drug flight or operation. There the pilot
gets revoked but can never, ever reapply for certificates. It's over
for him or her in this country.

Sheaffer just needs retraining and to demonstrate he is a competent
pilot after/if he receives it. The penalty he accepted will assure
that.

The guy got the toughest hammer the FAA could give him under our laws
(and pilots claim that the FAA is way too tough on pilots...this is the
first time I've heard pilots say the FAA is too lenient g). They
threw the book at him. There just plain isn't anything tougher in the
book. So what if he gets to retake his written and practical in 10
months rather than 12, he's probably history as a pilot. If he ever
goes for a flight test I suspect that the DPE would cut him no slack
whatsoever.

If you were the DPE, would you? I would hope the DPE would fairly
administer the examination to the letter of the PTS. Anything else
would be inappropriate.

He just reminds me of a quote some years back from a cop friend of
mine, "Remember, there are only two crimes, stupidity and aggravated
stupidity."

That may be true generally, but I'm sure there are intelligent
criminals; they just don't get caught.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:25:27 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::

He intentionally flew into the ADIZ.

Where'd you get that information?

Mike and Larry,

You mentioned "intent" items of which I was not aware when I drafted my
post: knowing about the ADIZ and that he carried a passenger without
being in compliance with recency of experience. Assuming both of those
were true, an ASRS report would not have helped the guy.

Most of the time an airspace error results in a suspension - usually
it's a pilot who knows about the airspace and slips up in navigating
and clips the edge (I'm aware of a couple where the pilot knew about it
but had figued the wrong center point of the airspace on a presidential
TFR so the edge was clipped and none of the pilots knew that had they
been on even a VFR flight plan with assigned transponder code that the
radius of concern for them dropped from 30 to 10 miles) - or fails to
check and get the information about a TFR. I had not seen a revocation
on an airspace violation, but then the guy who flew over DC really
screwed the pooch and IMHO the revocation was fully deserved.

All the best,
Rick

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:25:27 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::

He intentionally flew into the ADIZ.

Where'd you get that information?



By intentionally I meant that he was not lost, his sources of nav
information had not failed, he was not dodging thunderstorms. He planned a
flight that passed through the ADIZ.

Mike
MU-2

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:22:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:25:27 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::

He intentionally flew into the ADIZ.

Where'd you get that information?


By intentionally I meant that he was not lost, his sources of nav
information had not failed, he was not dodging thunderstorms. He planned a
flight that passed through the ADIZ.


Perhaps I'm reading to much into what I've read, but I don't think
Sheaffer was aware of the existence of the ADIZ at all before he
departed. If so, it's difficult to accept that he intentionally
entered it.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Perhaps I'm reading to much into what I've read, but I don't think
Sheaffer was aware of the existence of the ADIZ at all before he
departed. If so, it's difficult to accept that he intentionally
entered it.

Mike's statement is probably better phrased as "he intentionally flew into
the area in which the ADIZ exists".

Whether that makes a difference for the ASRS form, I don't know. I suspect
it does...that is, the *violation* was not intentional, even if the act that
led to it was. And it is an intentional violation that is excepted from the
protection of submitting the form (which is, I think, the point you are
making?).

I'm too lazy to go look at the exact wording now, but I wouldn't be
surprised if there's some language in the other exceptions that would have
disallowed this particular violation, given how egregious it was.

Pete

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:25:27 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::

He intentionally flew into the ADIZ.

Where'd you get that information?

By intentionally I meant that he was not lost, his sources of nav
information had not failed, he was not dodging thunderstorms. He planned
a flight that passed through the ADIZ.

Mike, where'd you read that he was not lost or that he was actually on his
planned course?

--Gary