ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

Neil Gould wrote:
Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by
the
authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at
gunpoint,
this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.

That's the way any police officer would treat a suspect. You have to
determine that they are not armed first. If you were on the verge of
being shot down by F-16s, you would be pretty happy about only being
spread-eagled at gunpoint.

Gary Drescher wrote:

Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though he
knew where the ADIZ was.

I'd be more likely to consider that a possibility if he were on anything other
than a direct course to his destination at the time.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kgJke.939$2b.301@trndny08...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though
he knew where the ADIZ was.

I'd be more likely to consider that a possibility if he were on anything
other than a direct course to his destination at the time.

If you think his course was intentional, you also have to conclude that he
didn't know about (or didn't care about) busting through the middle of the
Class B.

--Gary

Recently, George Patterson posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

One is expected to have *the information* that may be given in a
standard briefing (if you ask the right questions), but that
information is available from a number of sources.

And part of that information which one receives in a standard
briefing for that part of the country is the fact that an ADIZ exists
over Washington, D.C.. It is patently obvious that the PIC either did
not get that information or chose to ignore it. So the FAA charges
him with failing to get the info and will sort it out in the hearings.

The ADIZs also appear on the sectionals. Current charts *are* required,
and would be a lot more useful than someone on the phone saying "don't go
there" before you depart. No question that this pilot was unable to
navigate adequately, and it makes me wonder what his last BFR was like
(having just gone through that myself a few days ago).

Neil

Recently, Bucky posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by
the authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at
gunpoint, this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.

That's the way any police officer would treat a suspect. You have to
determine that they are not armed first. If you were on the verge of
being shot down by F-16s, you would be pretty happy about only being
spread-eagled at gunpoint.

Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
guns blazing.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote
The ADIZs also appear on the sectionals. Current charts *are* required,

NO charts are required.....not even for IFR flight.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01...
Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the
trigger...

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
[...]
If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
bystander, the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.

I have never heard of any court coming to that conclusion.

Can you direct me to a legal precedent that supports your statement? That
is, a case where a shot fired at a criminal was deemed to have been caused
by the criminal, and where the criminal was found in violation of a criminal
or civil law against causing a death?

[...] but there *is* such a regulation with regard to posing an analogous
danger while flying.

That certainly appears to be the FAA's interpretation of 91.13. I remain
unconvinced that it's a sensible interpretation. The pilot in question
never, as a direct result of his own actions, presented any hazard to life
or property. Any such hazard resulted only from the (overblown, IMHO)
reaction from the government.

Pete

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Charged with first-degree murder. If your commission of a violent felony
leads to a death that otherwise would not have occurred, you have
committed first-degree murder (in most states), regardless of who fired
the gun.

See http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a...st_degree.html.

Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the
crime?

It is conceivable to me that the law considers an accomplice to be
foreseeably in danger, or that it would differentiate between a lawful
killing and an unlawful killing, but that a different standard would be
applied to the killing of a bystander.

Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of
situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious that
an airspace violation. It doesn't even apply to all felonies.

In any case, I also don't feel that the two situations are analogous from an
ethical standpoint (though, they may be from the current regulatory
standpoint). That is, in the case of the commission of a crime, even a
robbery, deadly force is generally authorized (just this month, here in
Washington, a couple of guys strangled and killed a would-be unarmed and
unconscious car thief, and the killing was found to be justified), but the
C150 presented no danger that would justify creating a hazard either to the
occupants or those on the ground by firing on it.

Pete

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:VXHke.24$4b.10@trndny07...
Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of
the bystander that the police accidentally shot?

Yes, we do.

Note that, at least judging from the very brief explanation Gary posted a
link for, we would not charge a criminal guilty only of theft, burglary, or
similar crimes (even if those are felonies).

Pete