Would a NASA form help?

Just had a thought... could the two pilots who busted the DC restricted
airspace avoid a certificate action by filing an ASRS report? Here's
my thought process on this.

Was the violation inadvertant? Probably so. From the limited reports
that I have seen, they were aware of the restricted zones and they had
a plan to navigate around them. They just were unable or did not
follow their planned route. Did the violation cause an accident? No.
Probably the gotcha will be committing a criminal offense. White House
+ Fighter Jet + People Running Chaotically Through DC = You're S.O.L.
I'm sure that there is some sort of criminal negligence involved,
although I don't specifically know what they would be charged with.

But, could they still keep there licenses?

Of course, the NASA form will only hold water with respect to the FAA.
These guys still have all of the other acronyms to answer to, in
addition to everyone else involved in GA. Personally, I find that
mistake unexcusable. Ultimately, we will all feel the backlash from
this.

"Jesse Wright" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just had a thought... could the two pilots who busted the DC restricted
airspace avoid a certificate action by filing an ASRS report? Here's
my thought process on this.

Was the violation inadvertant? Probably so. From the limited reports
that I have seen, they were aware of the restricted zones and they had
a plan to navigate around them. They just were unable or did not
follow their planned route. Did the violation cause an accident? No.
Probably the gotcha will be committing a criminal offense. White House
+ Fighter Jet + People Running Chaotically Through DC = You're S.O.L.
I'm sure that there is some sort of criminal negligence involved,
although I don't specifically know what they would be charged with.

But, could they still keep there licenses?

The AP is reporting that since the incursion was inadvertent, no charges are
being filed. In the absence of any other source of culpability, merely
getting lost cannot be a criminal offense. If they file ASRS reports on
time, and have not been found to have violated other FARs within the past
five years, then they have guaranteed immunity against any civil penalties
or license suspensions. If they sell their story to the infotainment
industry, they could even come out ahead on the whole deal.

--Gary

I'd bring lube. Selling it could require lots of lube.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
The AP is reporting that since the incursion was inadvertent, no charges
are
being filed. In the absence of any other source of culpability, merely
getting lost cannot be a criminal offense. If they file ASRS reports on
time, and have not been found to have violated other FARs within the past
five years, then they have guaranteed immunity against any civil penalties
or license suspensions. If they sell their story to the infotainment
industry, they could even come out ahead on the whole deal.

--Gary

Jesse Wright wrote:
Just had a thought... could the two pilots who busted the DC restricted
airspace avoid a certificate action by filing an ASRS report?

No.

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:fdzge.1518$1f5.1398@trndny01...
Jesse Wright wrote:
Just had a thought... could the two pilots who busted the DC restricted
airspace avoid a certificate action by filing an ASRS report?

No.

Why not? The government has extended a written, binding guarantee of
immunity. How can that be abrogated if the specified conditions are met?

--Gary

Filing a NASA form does NOT guarantee immunity. If, for example, an
individual performed an intentional or willful violation of the FAR's, a
NASA form will not protect the pilot from prosecution or enforcement action.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
Filing a NASA form does NOT guarantee immunity. If, for example, an
individual performed an intentional or willful violation of the FAR's, a
NASA form will not protect the pilot from prosecution or enforcement
action.

That's why I said "if the specified conditions are met". Inadvertency is one
of those conditions.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

Why not? The government has extended a written, binding guarantee of
immunity. How can that be abrogated if the specified conditions are met?

My understanding is that that contract does not apply to violations of the ADIZ.

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

The kicker is that those guys *knew* they would be flying in very close
proximity of the ADIZ and were so ill-prepared for it.

Did they even have as much as a handheld GPS with them? How about a
backup handheld radio?

Considering the extreme seriousness of how the feds view that
particular ADIZ, why *any* VFR pilot flying within 20 miles of the
perimeter of it doesn't call up for flight following, is just
mind-bogglingly idiotic to me.

For those folks who'll cry that they have an antique nordo airplane and
wish to fly it near the ADIZ... sorry, but for all practical purposes
you've lost that freedom years ago. Unfair? Hell yes it is unfair as
hell, but it is the harsh reality and all the ****ing and moaning about
it will never change the way it is.

I've never even been within 500 miles of DC in my entire life, and have
minimal experience flying in big city controlled airspaces, yet I've
got enough functioning brain cells to know that if I had to fly
anywhere near to the DC ADIZ, that I'd need to have both my airplane
and myself fully-equipped for dealing with that abnormal situation
there before I'd even consider flying within 100 miles of the place.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:4yAge.1558$1f5.595@trndny01...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Why not? The government has extended a written, binding guarantee of
immunity. How can that be abrogated if the specified conditions are met?

My understanding is that that contract does not apply to violations of the
ADIZ.

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

--Gary
..