Cessna Over DC -- NASA Form?

"John T" wrote in message
m...
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message


His certificate is the least he should worry about. He has to face all
charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (- terrorism).

No charges are being filed.

By the FBI. Doesn't exclude FAA or others from lining up.



--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in
the
previous five years?

I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to
avoid
any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates
DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension.

I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy.

It's called the patriot act.

Dave Stadt wrote:

By the FBI. Doesn't exclude FAA or others from lining up.

These pilots are not facing any criminal charges. FAA sanctions are a civil
matter. The worst that will happen is a revocation of their certificates.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
news
I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy.

It's called the patriot act.

True. But the "Patriot" Act could be used to imprison any of us for any
reason at any time, with or without an ADIZ incursion. So far, though, its
invocation against US citizens is rare (though still a grave danger). The
FBI has already announced that no criminal charges are contemplated. The
ASRS immunity policy applies only to civil violations; the "Patriot" Act is
part of criminal law.

--Gary

I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy.

What exactly is this policy? My understanding is that they can't use
information in the NASA form as evidence against you, but if they have
independent evidence, that is fair game.

Jose

--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy.

What exactly is this policy? My understanding is that they can't use
information in the NASA form as evidence against you, but if they have
independent evidence, that is fair game.

No, the immunity policy is much stronger than that. See the pointer earlier
in the thread, along with my summary of its content.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not
binding.


The whole FAA regulatory system is an afront to your legal system. The
ASRS immunity never applied to crimes (specifically exempted). The
FAA isn't runnign the show here, and nobody has had the guts to stand
up to the people who are.

There've been many DC ADIZ violations. Are you aware of any instance in
which a pilot met the ASRS immunity conditions, but the promised immunity
was denied?

You're confusing two issues. The ASRS gives you immunity from action
based on the information you submit. This is importat, but it doesn't
apply here. They don't need the information in the ASRS form to prove
you violated the ADIZ.

The second ASRS feature is the absolution from sanctions if you
had submitted one. This just said you can get out of sanctions if
you showed a good attitude by sumbitting the form. This is what
is not being offered to pilots busting the ADIZ.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gary Drescher wrote:

I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were
not binding.

The whole FAA regulatory system is an afront to your legal system. The
ASRS immunity never applied to crimes (specifically exempted). The FAA
isn't runnign the show here, and nobody has had the guts to stand
up to the people who are.

No crime was committed; the FBI has already announced that no criminal
charges will be pressed. You were claiming there could be a 30-day license
suspension regardless of ASRS immunity conditions; that would be a civil
matter (under the FAA's jurisdiction), not a criminal matter.

There've been many DC ADIZ violations. Are you aware of any instance in
which a pilot met the ASRS immunity conditions, but the promised immunity
was denied?

You're confusing two issues. The ASRS gives you immunity from action
based on the information you submit. This is importat, but it doesn't
apply here. They don't need the information in the ASRS form to prove
you violated the ADIZ.

Right; that's not the type of immunity I was referring to.

The second ASRS feature is the absolution from sanctions if you
had submitted one. This just said you can get out of sanctions if
you showed a good attitude by sumbitting the form. This is what
is not being offered to pilots busting the ADIZ.

My point is that the written immunity policy promises that that absolution
*will* be granted (provided that a few conditions are met, as discussed
earlier in the thread). The written promise does not specify any exception
for ADIZ violations, so any such exception would constitute a blatant
violation of the stated promise. Promises of immunity are taken very
seriously by our legal system. In the absence of any known precedent for
such a blatant violation of an explicit promise of immunity (when the stated
conditions are met), I don't see any reason to conclude that that's what
would occur.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:


No crime was committed; the FBI has already announced that no criminal
charges will be pressed.

Just because there is no criminal charges filed, doesn't mean that a
crime wasn't technically comitted.


My point is that the written immunity policy promises that that absolution
*will* be granted (provided that a few conditions are met, as discussed
earlier in the thread). The written promise does not specify any exception
for ADIZ violations, so any such exception would constitute a blatant
violation of the stated promise. Promises of immunity are taken very
seriously by our legal system. In the absence of any known precedent for
such a blatant violation of an explicit promise of immunity (when the stated
conditions are met), I don't see any reason to conclude that that's what
would occur.

Welcome to the post-911 world. The ASRS doesn't even have the force of
regulation and the FAA and the rest off the executive branch is free to
misinterpret the regulations as they see fit.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gary Drescher wrote:


No crime was committed; the FBI has already announced that no criminal
charges will be pressed.

Just because there is no criminal charges filed, doesn't mean that a crime
wasn't technically comitted.

True. But do you know of any specific criminal statute that's violated by an
inadvertent ADIZ incursion?

Welcome to the post-911 world. The ASRS doesn't even have the force of
regulation and the FAA and the rest off the executive branch is free to
misinterpret the regulations as they see fit.

It's true that a promise of immunity doesn't constitute a regulation. But I
don't see how you conclude that it has *less force* than a regulation. As I
keep pointing out, promises of immunity are legally binding, and are treated
as such, even in very serious cases. No one in this discussion has been able
to cite an example, before or after 9/11, in which the FAA was able to (or
even tried to) impose a sanction that violated ASRS-promised immunity.

--Gary