Glider Pilot arrested for airspace

On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:22:35 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 9:21:35 AM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:

So what should I do if I find myself low and needing to fly over a power plant? The cooling tower might trigger a good thermal.



turn off your radio

No, that's the scary part. DHS was intending to use deadly force in this
instance. Robin was fortunate that he managed to catch their call on the
unicom frequency. (Personally speaking, I like to switch to the nearby
unicom/multicom frequency if I'm down digging near an airport, in case
there's traffic around. But, there have been times I haven't done that,
or turned the radio down in order to concentrate, or even had an inop
radio!)

We have a nuke plant near where we fly, and near to where I often get
up to final glide at the end of the day. Fortunately, it's surrounded
by forest and lake, and there's a coal plant nearer to the adjoining
airport that all-in-all is a better choice for a thermal (except for
the smell).

Matt

On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:38:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:

DHS was intending to use deadly force in this
instance.

How do you know that? I do not see that in the article.

On 1/11/2013 7:38 AM, wrote:
DHS was intending to use deadly force in this
instance.

According to the article, it was one local policeman, not the DHS. It
appeared it was the local officials that were seriously misinformed
about the regulations, and the FAA and DHS had it right.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 1/11/2013 6:48 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:56:40 AM UTC-5, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,
This is amazing.



http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...WT.mc_sect=gan


Paul Remde

It's total madness.

On the contrary, it appears to me to be "localized madness": the FAA and
DHS were not party to the plant officials' and local police's ignorance
about the airspace rules.

I do wish the pilot had discussed with the officials what they would do
the next time they saw a glider over the plant, before he agreed not to
pursue them legally.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 1/11/2013 4:56 AM, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,

This is amazing.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...WT.mc_sect=gan


Paul Remde


Gotta love this: "Fleming waited outside the courtroom Aug. 21 as his
case went before the judge. When his attorney returned and said the case
would be dismissed if he agreed not to take any legal action against
Darlington County law enforcement, he said, he reluctantly agreed." In
other words, "we will stop abusing our authority if you don't challenge
our abuse of our authority."

This type of thing probably would never happen in an area where there is
real crime. However, in a low crime area you have "wanna be cops" who
get tired of eating donuts at the coffee shop, and overreact to every
incident.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:43:54 -0800 (PST), "Sean F (F2)"
wrote:

Wow. The pilot NEVER should have signed away his right to sue. The government only understands the stick, and loosing money in a load public announcement of their incompetence.

Well, yes. He could have refused to sign and called his lawyer, but it
would have been a gamble. The lawyer might have taken on his lawsuit
on contingency, but getting acquitted in the first place would have
cost him a load of money up front.

Laws and courts are for those who can afford to pay for them...

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:36:52 -0800, Greg Arnold
wrote:

[snip]

" In
other words, "we will stop abusing our authority if you don't challenge
our abuse of our authority."


The word for that is "extortion".

This type of thing probably would never happen in an area where there is
real crime. However, in a low crime area you have "wanna be cops" who
get tired of eating donuts at the coffee shop, and overreact to every
incident.

Time for Sheriff Andy to take Barney's bullet away.

The last paragraph in the AOPA article has the following:

"Although the breach of peace arrest warrant that was ultimately filed
refers to a 'No Fly Zone' neither the federal nor local authorities could
cite a federal violation because this was not a 'No Fly Zone.'"

Now I ain't no lawyer, but I've seen them on TV, and it looks to me, based
on the above, that the warrant was not valid and, thus, the charges were not
valid and, therefore, would be dropped without any agreements from the
pilot.

I wasn't there and don't know what he went through, but my gut says, "Sue
the *******s!"

Also, I will not comply with any local law enforcement demands that I land.
I will, of course, comply with the FAA or a military interceptor...


"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
...
On 1/11/2013 4:56 AM, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,

This is amazing.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...WT.mc_sect=gan


Paul Remde


Gotta love this: "Fleming waited outside the courtroom Aug. 21 as his
case went before the judge. When his attorney returned and said the case
would be dismissed if he agreed not to take any legal action against
Darlington County law enforcement, he said, he reluctantly agreed." In
other words, "we will stop abusing our authority if you don't challenge
our abuse of our authority."

This type of thing probably would never happen in an area where there is
real crime. However, in a low crime area you have "wanna be cops" who get
tired of eating donuts at the coffee shop, and overreact to every
incident.

Following up on the AOPA article linked to by the OP this morning, here's the original Sep 2001 FAA notice about flight near nuclear plants:
http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=67...ow=blog&id=336
Note that you cannot "CIRCLE AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY" of nuclear plants, etc.

And here's the clarification that the SSA got in Mar 2002 from "FAA Air Traffic" regarding the "no loitering" rule:
http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=67...ive =3/1/2002

Apparently there isn't anything written from "FAA Air Traffic" to the SSA on this subject. I'm also not sure that the toll free number the SSA set up in 2002 still works.

-John, Q3

On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:00:23 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:38:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:



DHS was intending to use deadly force in this

instance.



How do you know that? I do not see that in the article.

Because I talked to Robin after the incident. There's reference to it
in the article. Fortunately they asked the helicopter guys to do it,
who knew better.

Matt