ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message

No, you've got it backwards...

Then please explain why the pilot's attorney would be "counting on" the
feds
not examining the computer, when examining the computer *cannot* give the
feds useful evidence but *might* give the pilot useful evidence.

Because in this trivial case, he figures they will just accept his claim.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no evidence
is
found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of
computer
activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed
he
visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.

True.

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Why I had refered to not holding up was because he stated that he got a
briefing that didn't mention the second restricted area along his path.

No, his statement made no such claim. Here's the link again:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1 .

--Gary

Recently, Peter R. posted:

Neil wrote:

I don't even understand why the
FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

[...]

But seriously, perhaps the real charge was something along the lines
of "failure to check all pertinant information including a standard
briefing," which some reporter took to mean failure to check weather.

You're probably right, however, a standard briefing is also not required.
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.

Neil

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
Then please explain why the pilot's attorney would be "counting
on" the feds not examining the computer, when examining the
computer *cannot* give the feds useful evidence but *might* give
the pilot useful evidence.

Because in this trivial case, he figures they will just accept his claim.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I understand why the attorney
would *not expect* the feds to examine the computer (and in fact I explained
why they wouldn't have incentive to do so even if the matter were *not*
trivial). What I disputed is that the attorney would have reason to "count
on" that non-examination (that is, to *depend on* that non-examination),
since the examination, if it had any effect at all, would be to the pilot's
*benefit*.

--Gary

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no evidence
is
found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of
computer
activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed
he
visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.

True.

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an expert
"consultant". If the expert finds useful evidence he will be converted to a
"witness". If he does not find useful evidence there will never be any
record of his work. If they are smart there will not even be a written
report.

Michael

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.

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'.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

I am not sure why there is the need for all this tortuous debate. The pilot
in command showed abysmal airmanship to the extent that no one can really
question his incompetence and his unfitness to have a pilot certificate.

He got caught and has been punished, sparing us all the opportunity to be in
the air at the same time as him.

I for one am pleased that a dozy pilot has been grounded. At least he cannot
do that again.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

I am not sure why there is the need for all this tortuous debate.

That's certainly a fair question.

I think the answer is that we've been debating the appropriateness (or not)
of some of the specific charges against the pilot (concerning recklessness
or obtaining a briefing, for example). Justice requires looking carefully at
the details of the accusations, rather than just being satisfied that he did
something bad, and so should receive some punishment under whatever pretext
is handy.

--Gary

He got caught and has been punished, sparing us all the opportunity to be
in the air at the same time as him.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:nHIke.1316$5b.83@trndny04...
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.

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

--Gary