On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:43:25 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


They don't make 'laws', so how can they make something 'illegal'.

The OP meant to say, a violation of regulations, not illegal, I think.

You've mentioned this distinction at least a couple times recently, but I'm
thinking it's a lot less black & white than I'd like it to be.

When you have such a thing as an "administrative law judge" and Congress
forfeiting (gladly?) to the Executive branch broad regulatory power,
regulations begin to carry the weight of "law" and "violation of
regulations" becomes essentially the same thing as "illegal."

We disagree.

The only significant distinction is jail time or the lack thereof.

Of course, you are free to believe what you like. However, because
there is no presumption of innocence, nor judicial due process, nor
arraignment, nor trial by jury, etc., there are significant
differences between a court case and an administrative action. If you
are unable to discern the distinctions between them, you fail to
appreciate the true disadvantage of a pilot facing the FAA.

However, if the penalty is severe enough, losing one's estate is not
much better than simple jail time.

To my knowledge, the FAA has only limited power to impose civil fines,
and personally, I consider the lack of threat of incarceration a very
significant difference. And You'll have to cite a precedent before
I'll believe a pilot facing an FAA administrative action is subject to
losing his "estate," what ever that means.

It is my understanding, that the FAA's power to impose penalties on
airmen is limited to a $1,000.00 civil fine and certificate
suspension, or revocation, but I have no first hand knowledge,
thankfully.

So just how "black and white" would you like it to be?