If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Gary Drescher wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:lMBof.168$CL.5@trnddc04... Matt Whiting wrote: But isn't it the NTSB that usually makes the final determination on the appeal? Used to be that way. Congress added the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Appeals court some years ago. George, I have a different understanding of the three branches' separation of powers. Neither the administration nor the Congress has the Constitutional authority to make a federal agency's decisions categorically immune to judicial review. Congress may have formalized the appeal process at some point, but I don't think it could have previously been the case that NTSB decisions were exempt from all judicial appeal. The NTSB may formerly have taken that position, but that didn't make it true. Was there ever a case that an appeals court refused to hear on the grounds that NTSB decisions were inherently unappealable? It has been a long time since my high school American Government class, but I thought that this only applied to constitional rights, not so-called privileges. If your state pulls your driver's license, can you really appeal that through the Federal court system? Matt |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
... It has been a long time since my high school American Government class, but I thought that this only applied to constitional rights, not so-called privileges. If your state pulls your driver's license, can you really appeal that through the Federal court system? I suspect the (initial) appeal would be in state court rather than federal, but there is certainly a judicial remedy if the denial of your license is unreasonable. (The FAA, of course, is a federal agency, so no state courts are involved.) The so-called right vs. privilege distinction is beside the point, because there is unquestionably a constitutional right to not have a privilege unreasonably withheld. Your state could not, for example, deny you a driver's license just because they don't like your race or religion. If they tried, you could certainly get the courts to intervene. --Gary |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Gary Drescher wrote:
George, I have a different understanding of the three branches' separation of powers. Neither the administration nor the Congress has the Constitutional authority to make a federal agency's decisions categorically immune to judicial review. Congress may have formalized the appeal process at some point, but I don't think it could have previously been the case that NTSB decisions were exempt from all judicial appeal. The NTSB may formerly have taken that position, but that didn't make it true. Was there ever a case that an appeals court refused to hear on the grounds that NTSB decisions were inherently unappealable? Absolutely. This lack of appeal to the judicial branch was a big bone of contention for AOPA in the early 90s. The latest article I found recently in AOPAs files describing this dates from 1994, so it was changed sometime after that. A later Yodice (IIRC) article states that this was changed by decree of Congress. George Patterson Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to your slightly older self. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:bPKof.1392$eI5.1003@trnddc05... Gary Drescher wrote: Was there ever a case that an appeals court refused to hear on the grounds that NTSB decisions were inherently unappealable? Absolutely. Perhaps I'm mistaken then. Do you have a pointer to the case? Thanks, Gary |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Gary Drescher wrote:
Perhaps I'm mistaken then. Do you have a pointer to the case? Cases. Not tonight. If you're in a hurry, search the AOPA site for "NTSB appeal". Look for older articles. George Patterson Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to your slightly older self. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:gjNof.1095$7f3.16@trnddc01... Gary Drescher wrote: Perhaps I'm mistaken then. Do you have a pointer to the case? Cases. Not tonight. If you're in a hurry, search the AOPA site for "NTSB appeal". Look for older articles. Sorry, I haven't been able to find any example of the sort I asked about (namely, an appeals court refusing to hear a case on the grounds that NTSB decisions were inherently unappealable). I'll wait until you have a chance to provide a pointer. Thanks, Gary |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. .. This was updated, and re-emphasized in 2005. Read this: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html In a case not noted in either source, the NTSB referred to pilot reports as "anectodal evidence" and said that pilots had to rely on government reports, period. This 2005 case gives pilot reports a little more slack. For those of us who can't get to the linked article, if that refers to NTSB opinions from 2005, would you cite the Order no.s please? Thanks Julian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Issues around de-ice on a 182 | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 87 | September 27th 05 11:46 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Have you ever... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 229 | May 6th 05 08:26 PM |
Known Icing requirements | Jeffrey Ross | Owning | 1 | November 20th 04 03:01 AM |
Wife agrees to go flying | Corky Scott | Piloting | 29 | October 2nd 03 06:55 PM |