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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
busted
What confuses me is that all the pundit TV shows keep saying tonight is
that authorities have decided not to charge the pilots with a crime. Are they shaving the distinction between "crime" and a "violation" very closely. I can't imagine there wouldn't be administrative action against these two pilots. At least remedial training and a check ride with an FAA examiner. Or a license suspension. You'd get as much for a transgression into a plain old class B or C. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Huffman wrote in
: What confuses me is that all the pundit TV shows keep saying tonight is that authorities have decided not to charge the pilots with a crime. Are they shaving the distinction between "crime" and a "violation" very closely. I can't imagine there wouldn't be administrative action against these two pilots. At least remedial training and a check ride with an FAA examiner. Or a license suspension. You'd get as much for a transgression into a plain old class B or C. But a violation of FARs is not a criminal offense. It's a civil action. That's why you aren't provided with a lawyer, and don't go to a courtroom. A license suspension is very likely, but that isn't a criminal sanction. -- Regards, Stan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
Exactly. Which, to me, also means that even though the police say they do not intend to file charges, the FAA is still free to issue sanctions, including suspensions or revocations. Is this incorrect? Yes, that's correct. First time ADIZ offenders face a mandatory 30-day suspension. This is a civil matter, not criminal. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:04:17 -0400, Tom Fleischman
k wrote: On 2005-05-11 22:27:59 -0400, Paul Huffman said: What confuses me is that all the pundit TV shows keep saying tonight is that authorities have decided not to charge the pilots with a crime. Are they shaving the distinction between "crime" and a "violation" very closely. I can't imagine there wouldn't be administrative action against these two pilots. At least remedial training and a check ride with an FAA examiner. Or a license suspension. You'd get as much for a transgression into a plain old class B or C. There is the charging with a Federal Crime, which they say they aren't going to do, and the violation of FAA regulations for which they most likely will both be "violated". The FAA is not at all forgiving of those who transgress into the TFRs and ADIZs. The pilot, at the least will probably lose his ticket for a year or two, then have to take remedial training followed by an FAA Check ride (not one given by a DE). Quite likely the student will get nothing more than some extra training with emphasis on pilotage, special use airspace, briefings, and the use of flight plans. Why both of them? One was PIC, the other was a passenger. Why take action against the passenger. In this case the passenger would probably be considered an accomplice. The only saving grace is the passenger was a student. But as to why both? If you are riding with a friend who stops to make a withdrawal at the bank, except he does it as a robbery. Then drives away. A few blocks later the police arrest both your friend and you. It will take a *lot* of convincing that you were not an accomplice. Probably the convincing of a jury. Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you convicted if you draw the wrong jury. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger" wrote in message
... On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:04:17 -0400, Tom Fleischman k wrote: Why both of them? One was PIC, the other was a passenger. Why take action against the passenger. In this case the passenger would probably be considered an accomplice. How can someone possibly be an "accomplice" to getting lost? Being an accomplice requires intentionally helping to take a prohibited action. How can someone be an accomplice to a violation that's not even intentional on the part of the perpetrator himself? If you are riding with a friend who stops to make a withdrawal at the bank, except he does it as a robbery. Then drives away. A few blocks later the police arrest both your friend and you. It will take a *lot* of convincing that you were not an accomplice. Probably the convincing of a jury. In the situation you describe, it's not up to you to convince a jury of anything. It's up to the *government* to *prove beyond a reasonable doubt* that you not only knew about the robbery, but took *overt action* for the sake of assisting in the robbery. In the absence of some evidence of your participation (such as testimony to that effect by your friend or by witnesses), there isn't even a case to be brought against you. Again, though, that's not at all analogous to the ADIZ violation, which was unintentional even on the part of the PIC, so no one could possibly be an "accomplice" to that violation. And in fact, rather than taking action against the passenger, the FAA has been praising him, as was documented recently in another thread. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
busted | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | May 17th 05 05:18 AM |
Busted TFR | Bela P. Havasreti | Piloting | 6 | June 22nd 04 03:46 PM |
Want KLN 88-90 Parts Unit -- Sell that busted unit | Bill Hale | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | June 16th 04 07:16 PM |
Busted IFR Checkride | Jon Kraus | Instrument Flight Rules | 77 | May 4th 04 02:31 PM |
rec.aviation.questions is busted | Dan Jacobson | General Aviation | 2 | November 18th 03 05:39 PM |