ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

Denny wrote:
Interested folks need to read Mr. Sheaffer's issued statement, reported
on AVWEB and AOPA....

denny

Mr. Sheaffer's statement was issued by his attorney (not a bad idea) and
should be taken with a LARGE amount of skepticism.

xyzzy wrote:


AOPA has said that Sheaffer is not an instructor, if correct Troy Martin
was not "his student" he was merely a passenger (legally anyway)


Right, "a student" not "his student" would be a more appropriate word.

Dave S wrote:
keep in mind this is an "Emergency Revocation".

The pilot involved still is entitled to his due process, and the action
MAY (we are talking hypothetically, here) be overturned at the
completion of that due process.


There is NO due process in FAA actions, emergency or otherwise.

Dave S wrote:
I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
He has not had that yet.

Dave

Nobody gets a fair trial before the FAA.
You have to spend years and mucho dollars before you ever
get to a real judge.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Dave S wrote:

I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
He has not had that yet.


Dave


A trial in this case would be an appeal to the NTSB.

No a trial would be appearing before a bona fide member of the
judiciary, which you are not elligible for until after the NTSB
has ruled (and the FAA has either ignored the ruling if it was in
your favor, or the NTSB rubber stamps the sham process as it was).

George Patterson wrote:

* FAR 99.7. Operated the aircraft in an air defense identification
zone (ADIZ) without complying with special security instructions issued
by the administrator in the interest of national security and that are
consistent with appropriate agreements between the FAA and the
Department of Defense.

I can't see how 99.7 applies here. The DC Area ADIZ doeesn't meet the
applicability standards of Part 99 despite the fact that it shares the
acronym with the airspace of that part.

Peter Duniho wrote:
..

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?

If he had been shot down over DC it would have been dangerous to those
on the ground :-)

They could also write him up for failure to maintain a safe altitude
over a congested area as well.

Greg Farris wrote:
In article ,

says...



No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is

something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case
here.

Could you explain why you disagree?


Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not
engendered
buy the actions of the "offender". 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?

G Faris


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

Gig G

"George Patterson" wrote in message

"In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted
area of
Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a more than
anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to infringe upon
the
Washington, D.C., restricted zones," said part of the statement.

Incredible!!! Amazing!!

I'm surprised the guy can make coffee.

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
ups.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.