Water Skiing Accident

[marker60]

Had to happen!

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20090428X12552&key=1

[High Country]

It probably won't be the last either.

What happens to the pilot who doesn't have a license? The FAA doesn't really have anything to take away from him. Do the troopers get involved? Is there some kind of criminal charge?

[Clay Hammond]

Some sort of endangerment charge I would imagine. They could probably care less if he hurt himself, its the potential and probable harm to others that will get him gigged.

[Bill Ingerson]

My guess is He is really screwed, probably no insurance, FAA looking hard at it, lying, trying to cover up a accident, Witness on tape, Don't think he could of done anything more that was wrong, maybe fly it into a building.

Bill

[behindpropellers]

Sounds like he narrowly escaped Natural Selection.

FOUR DWI's....sounds like a winner.

Now we have to pay lots of $$ to prosecute him.

[OLDCROWE]

I think someone was water skiing in the shallow end of the gene pool

[marker60]

Prosecute him for what? Breaking his own airplane? That area is somewhat secluded, so I don't know that he endangered anyone but himself. Aside from the laws of common sense, what law did he break? Maybe he was FWI (flying while intoxicated), but how could they prove that? I don't mean to condone what he did, just wondering what laws were actually broken. I can fly recklessly in my own airplane all I want, so long as I don't endanger anyone else or violate the regulations. Maybe they can prosecute for operating without a license?

[Clay Hammond]

Well for one it could be said that he endangered the people who took the alleged video. Plus I think there are criminal charges there for operating an aircraft without a license, which he was doing due to the fact that a student license is your medical, which he had not been issued, but rather denied.

[High Country]

I can fly recklessly in my own airplane all I want, so long as I don't endanger anyone else or violate the regulations.

I agree with that statement 100%. I have however from experience learned that the FAA does not. You damage an airplane in the middle of no where and the FAA finds out. You will at a minimum take a oral proficiency exam with the FAA. Even if it's no fault of your own.

I don't like it and tried to argue my way out of it (AOPA legal was on my side) to no avail. It's the world we live in.

Shane

[aalexander]

It probably won't be the last either.

What happens to the pilot who doesn't have a license? The FAA doesn't really have anything to take away from him. Do the troopers get involved? Is there some kind of criminal charge?

Not an expert, but that never stopped me before. The FAA does have a process for getting criminal charges. I don't know the details, but it does happen, but The instances I've seen haven't been for things like this. They've been for things like falsification, fraud, things like that. DOT has a web page that lists recent criminal cases, including aviation related ones.

For something like this, they sometimes are able to get civil fines when there's no certificate to suspend/revoke. Not sure how that works, either but it does happen.

[Cubdude]

I can fly recklessly in my own airplane all I want, so long as I don't endanger anyone else or violate the regulations.

I agree with that statement 100%. I have however from experience learned that the FAA does not. You damage an airplane in the middle of no where and the FAA finds out. You will at a minimum take a oral proficiency exam with the FAA. Even if it's no fault of your own.

I don't like it and tried to argue my way out of it (AOPA legal was on my side) to no avail. It's the world we live in.

Shane

I didn't have to after my crash. After I filed my "crash" report I never heard from the FAA again.

[mit greb]

I can fly recklessly in my own airplane all I want, so long as I don't endanger anyone else or violate the regulations.

I agree with that statement 100%. I have however from experience learned that the FAA does not. You damage an airplane in the middle of no where and the FAA finds out. You will at a minimum take a oral proficiency exam with the FAA. Even if it's no fault of your own.

I don't like it and tried to argue my way out of it (AOPA legal was on my side) to no avail. It's the world we live in.

Shane

They can ask for a reexamination at anytime.

[mike mcs repair]

ktuu has video, or so it seems they just did a blurb about upcoming story......

[bowhunter]

This whole scenario seems to be a comedy of errors.(Minus the humor)
>Flying without a license
>Water skipping for the he-- of it in front of campers.(I still can not see a good reason for water skipping as sport, my thought has always been water/snow are not your friend when on wheels)
>Asking the bystanders to '' not call the cops'', seems like a sure way to get them to do just that.
>Lying to the investigators once he was found out
>Attempting to hide your plane??? I don't really know how you do that exactly.
>Lastly it may be justice that if your going to go practice being stupid you happen to do it in front of a tattletale. (The real downside to this will be the bad light put on everyone who uses this area to practice)

[S2D]

What happens to the pilot who doesn't have a license? The FAA doesn't really have anything to take away from him. Do the troopers get involved? Is there some kind of criminal charge?

Yea, that used to be the big joke around here. what can they do to you if you don't have a license. then they found a local that didn't have a license.--Federal Crime--. The FAA's version of the FBI show up, depose everyone that's a pilot and possible witness to his flying , and charge the guy with a serious crime.

[aalexander]

and charge the guy with a serious crime.

What was the crime, specifically? Do you know? Kinda curious how this works.

[mvivion]

Get the latest copy of AOPA Pilot magazine, and read John Yodice's column. That'll tell you all you need to know about where this case will likely go.

MTV

[mike mcs repair]

seems everybody has a video phone now.....

Palmer pilot flips his plane in the Knik River....
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10284411

the FAA head lawyer up here talks about it also in here....


4 DUI's and he's only 26...............

.

[Widebody]

Not sure why these events are always called accidents.
It's surely a crash when it happens, but it was done purposely
with nothing accidental about it.

Brad

[strangeak]

Gene Pool contamination at its finest.

26 with 4 DWI/DUI's, no license, crashed "Dads" plane (funny it seems to be registered with a co-owner), Hide the plane in the bushes, ask witnesses not call the cops (best way to ensure they are called)...

If he had half a brain he would have jumped out and claimed to be a test pilot, testing a new retraint system, fuel cutoff valve or something, valiantly risking his life to save another... look walked away.. no fire.. it must work!

Sorry if its someone here or known to someone here.... but sheesh.. put a leash on that boy and get him fixed.

[aalexander]

Get the latest copy of AOPA Pilot magazine, and read John Yodice's column. That'll tell you all you need to know about where this case will likely go.

MTV

Haven't got the magazine yet but looked it up online. That was the kind of situation where I've heard of criminal charges being filed, where documents are falsified. I suppose that they could charge him with knowingly making false statements, but hypothetically, suppose that he hadn't, say he'd answered all questions truthfully. What would they have for enforcement options then?

[Christina Young]

Give me a break. No harm, no foul. There were no "victims" to this "crime" except himself and his dad, who owned the plane. It doesn't appear that the people on shore are in any danger at all - they appear to be quite far away. Why should the government waste our money on this crap with all the way more serious problems we have out there?

[aalexander]

Give me a break. No harm, no foul. There were no "victims" to this "crime" except himself and his dad, who owned the plane. It doesn't appear that the people on shore are in any danger at all - they appear to be quite far away. Why should the government waste our money on this crap with all the way more serious problems we have out there?

I think most here believe that this *should* be someone's own affair, at least I do. However, the reality is that the FAA does not, hence the discussion of what the legal ramifications will be.

[skukum12]

I agree with aalexander, this should be a matter between a father and an out of control, albeit over 18 son.

BUT

Because every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a damn camera at the ready, all of us involved in this flying thing need to be more vigilant about where and how we practice.

His choice of playground alone just proves that he is a person with a very myopic view of the consequences of his actions. I flew that section of river on Sunday afternoon myself, I saw all the people still camping there. I also made dang sure that I was at least 500 feet over the bridges when I flew by. My N numbers are too big and there are too many do gooders with a camera and a bone to pick for my liking.

There are miles of braids upstream to practice skipping and short field work, don't do it near or anywhere downstream of Jim Creek.

Joe

[Snert]

Nah, he should have jumped out of the plane and said. "Damn UFO's"

[mvivion]

Well, let's see---presumably his DUI's haven't hurt anyone either.

Yet.

So, it should be left between him and his father?

That seems to be working really well on the DUI front, doesn't it?

How long do you figure before this guy gets drunk, cruises out to an airport, and "borrows" someone's Cub, puts his girlfriend in the back and....

Does YOUR Cub have lots of locks on it, or secured in a locked hangar?

Why don't you give MADD a call and ask them why there should be consequences for folks like this?

Look, folks, this isn't Joe Pilot, who was out flying and happened to screw up....this is a young man who is totally out of control. And, it is only a matter of time before he hurts someone really bad.

What would you bet that the fellow drove a car to the airstrip to go fly as well......

MTV

[S2D]

and charge the guy with a serious crime.

What was the crime, specifically? Do you know? Kinda curious how this works.

"flying without a license" was the crime. I saw the actual code, but can't remember where it is. He went to court, got it reduced to a fine and probation.

[Rob Murray]

This incident reminds me of a two-part story Jim Richmond ran years ago in his original Super Cub Newsletter. The topic was how to land on gravel bars, beginning your touch-down on the water. After explaining his technique the author admitted it didn't work the first couple of times he tried it but didn't mention the recovery and rebuilding time in between landings.

[Speedo]

It doesn't appear that the people on shore are in any danger at all - they appear to be quite far away.

The person interviewed for the story said the plane was 40 yards away from him, and that there were people on the riverbank who were even closer than that. A plane traveling at 60 mph will cover 40 yards, or 120 feet, in 1.4 seconds. If that plane veered out of control and started heading for the riverbank they wouldn't have had time to get out of the way. In my book, those folks were definitely in danger.

Furthermore, it wasn't the choice of the fishermen or the person interviewed to take the risk: the danger was foisted on them by the unlicensed pilot. The municipal, state, and federal governments all have explicit duties to provide for our safety, and should be expected to pursue anyone who puts others at risk.

In this instance, I don't agree with the notion "no harm no foul."

[OLDCROWE]

Give me a break. No harm, no foul. There were no "victims" to this "crime" except himself and his dad, who owned the plane. It doesn't appear that the people on shore are in any danger at all - they appear to be quite far away. Why should the government waste our money on this crap with all the way more serious problems we have out there?

We had one of these here a couple of years back... what's the risk just a never licensed little trained "pilot" that killed 2 kids he was giving a ride to when he splashed one into Grand Lake. Of course he survived! He claimed engine failure but the beer cans rattling around the cabin led the DA to think otherwise, local charges filed but ultimately dismissed over jurisdictional grounds with the Fed.

I say "Book 'em Danno"

[Christina Young]

"flying without a license" was the crime. I saw the actual code, but can't remember where it is. He went to court, got it reduced to a fine and probation.

I do not believe there is any provision in the U.S. criminal code for this. Pilot license requirements are FAA regulations only, i.e. administrative, civil regulations. From my understanding the only thing the FAA could do is impose whatever civil penalties are in the regulations.

I know of people who have lost their licenses before, but continued to fly anyway... and the FAA apparently felt there was nothing they could do about it, because they didn't do anything about it.

Perhaps one of the attorneys on this site could chime in here and confirm.

[Christina Young]

Well, let's see---presumably his DUI's haven't hurt anyone either.

Yet.

So, it should be left between him and his father?

That seems to be working really well on the DUI front, doesn't it?

How long do you figure before this guy gets drunk, cruises out to an airport, and "borrows" someone's Cub, puts his girlfriend in the back and....

Does YOUR Cub have lots of locks on it, or secured in a locked hangar?

Why don't you give MADD a call and ask them why there should be consequences for folks like this?

Look, folks, this isn't Joe Pilot, who was out flying and happened to screw up....this is a young man who is totally out of control. And, it is only a matter of time before he hurts someone really bad.

What would you bet that the fellow drove a car to the airstrip to go fly as well......

MTV

Yes, if the "26-year old kid" stole the plane, the father could report it as a theft to authorities. Or sue him.

What is not clear is that he actually had to drive to the airport as you infer above. Many people live at Wolf Lake Airpark, he might have lived there with his dad.

MTV, do you think we should set up a "Department of Pre-Crime" and simply arrest and imprison him before he commits his next DUI?

Apparently he must have served out his sentences for his previous DUI's.

[Christina Young]

The person interviewed for the story said the plane was 40 yards away from him, and that there were people on the riverbank who were even closer than that. A plane traveling at 60 mph will cover 40 yards, or 120 feet, in 1.4 seconds. If that plane veered out of control and started heading for the riverbank they wouldn't have had time to get out of the way. In my book, those folks were definitely in danger.

Two questions:

1. Is it legal to land there?
2. Was he in the process of landing?


Furthermore, it wasn't the choice of the fishermen or the person interviewed to take the risk: the danger was foisted on them by the unlicensed pilot. The municipal, state, and federal governments all have explicit duties to provide for our safety, and should be expected to pursue anyone who puts others at risk.

The government's purpose is to protect people's liberty, constitutional rights, provide for justice and the common defense, not to provide safety to people (read the preamble of the Constitution for a better description of the govt's duties than I provide here). A certain famous quote about govt-provided safety by Ben Franklin also comes to mind here!

"Pursuing anyone who puts others at risk" is a recipe for a nanny state and a pretty broad order. When you drive to work every morning, you are putting others at risk! Whenever you fly a plane, no matter how safely you fly, you are putting others at risk! Do you want the government to pursue you, or shut down aviation?

I think this is more a local issue than an FAA one. If that area is a dangerous one for planes to land (dangerous to people on the ground), then they should make it off limits to aircraft by local ordinance.

Again, the real victim of this incident is the guys father. If the father let him take the plane, then he has no real recourse. However if he did not approve, then there is both a crime and a tort that I can see. Of course, I am assuming that only the father owns the plane... if it has other owners, then they would also be victims.

[Rob]

....Again, the real victim of this incident is the guys father....

I say amen to that, albeit for different reasons. This kid is clearly out of control and in need of some thearpy and a good swift kick in the ...
Can yo imagine how many night his mom has probably stayed up wondering if he's gonna make it home ok? or how many times dad hung his head down as the scuttlebutt at the office was about juniors latest trip to the pokey...
I hope the dad isn't a member here, because when mob mentality takes over we tend to be pretty rough on our fellow man. I looked at that news clip and more people are bashing mom and dad than the kid :roll:
I'm also with jr on this one... most all of us have done some bone head maneuvers in our younger years that could have got us strung up. Some of us are still guilty on a fairly regular basis... This kid just seems to be taking care of enough of those maneuvers for those that didn't :oops: In this day and age, troubled kids can come from even the best of families, your only safe guard is to be their best friend, because if you aren't someone else will be.

[aalexander]

"flying without a license" was the crime. I saw the actual code, but can't remember where it is. He went to court, got it reduced to a fine and probation.

Thanks. I didn't know that there was such a criminal statute.

[aalexander]

Well, let's see---presumably his DUI's haven't hurt anyone either.

Yet.

So, it should be left between him and his father?

That seems to be working really well on the DUI front, doesn't it?

How long do you figure before this guy gets drunk, cruises out to an airport, and "borrows" someone's Cub, puts his girlfriend in the back and....

Does YOUR Cub have lots of locks on it, or secured in a locked hangar?

Why don't you give MADD a call and ask them why there should be consequences for folks like this?

Look, folks, this isn't Joe Pilot, who was out flying and happened to screw up....this is a young man who is totally out of control. And, it is only a matter of time before he hurts someone really bad.

What would you bet that the fellow drove a car to the airstrip to go fly as well......

MTV

Mike, I guess my comment that something like this is your own business was a generality, that folks should be allowed to decide their own level of risk on things like this. I'd agree that this particular individual is pretty much out of control.

[aalexander]

I say amen to that, albeit for different reasons. This kid is clearly out of control and in need of some thearpy and a good swift kick in the ...
Can yo imagine how many night his mom has probably stayed up wondering if he's gonna make it home ok? or how many times dad hung his head down as the scuttlebutt at the office was about juniors latest trip to the pokey...
I hope the dad isn't a member here, because when mob mentality takes over we tend to be pretty rough on our fellow man. I looked at that news clip and more people are bashing mom and dad than the kid :roll:
I'm also with jr on this one... most all of us have done some bone head maneuvers in our younger years that could have got us strung up. Some of us are still guilty on a fairly regular basis... This kid just seems to be taking care of enough of those maneuvers for those that didn't :oops: In this day and age, troubled kids can come from even the best of families, your only safe guard is to be their best friend, because if you aren't someone else will be.


It's interesting to read the records of the Alaska Court system. Seems our intrepid aviator has quite a familiarity with the law. In addition to the DUIs, 3-5 instances of driving without a registration*, 4 minor in possession of alcohol, Driving without a license twice, Vandalizing traffic signs, racing on the highways, failure to stop for an officer, failure to appear in court, Debt collection over $2500, driving without insurance, I didn't bother to count the speeding tickets, illegal u turns, etc. It would appear that drunken buffoonery and contempt for the law is a fairly fundemental element of this guy's program.


*Not completely sure of the count, it's unclear whether some are multiple counts in the same year, or multiple records arising form the same incident.

[Speedo]

Christina,

While I share your concerns about becoming a nanny state, I do believe that a fundamental role of government is to provide for the safety of citizens. That's why we have police departments and fire departments, that's why governments enact laws. Please, let's not pull out our copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and argue about whether or not they explicitly authorize the creation of these entities. Let's just accept the fact that in America, governments do, in fact, endeavor to create and sustain a safe environment.

In your comment regarding the risk of driving to work, you fail to acknowledge the underlying explicit acceptance of risk: the people in the cars accept the risk of an accident, and the pedestrians on the sidewalk accept the risk of a car running them over. Fortunately for everybody, most drivers can be counted on to keep their car on the pavement, so the risk isn't especially high. However, unless water-skiing is an every day occurrence on that stretch of the river it is highly improbably that the family picnicking beside the river and the pair fishing on the bank explicitly accepted the risk of being hit by an out of control plane or plane parts. And, as the unlicensed pilot proved, water-skiing is not quite as predictable as commuting to work in a car.

Your underlying logic of "no harm no foul" is fundamentally flawed. If a person walked through your neighborhood shooting a gun but not damaging any property other than his own you would still expect law enforcement to stop him and to charge him. The person shooting the gun is creating a risky situation in which someone might be hurt, and as long as he is shooting he is forcing others to accept the risk of being shot. The person water-skiing his plane right past picnickers and fisherman is creating the same kind of risk.

I suspect this is one of those matters upon which we will have to agree to disagree.

Eric

[Christina Young]

"flying without a license" was the crime. I saw the actual code, but can't remember where it is. He went to court, got it reduced to a fine and probation.

Thanks. I didn't know that there was such a criminal statute.

There is NO criminal statute requiring a pilots license to fly.

It is required by FAR 61.3, an administrative (civil) regulation.

[aalexander]

There is NO criminal statute requiring a pilots license to fly.

It is required by FAR 61.3, an administrative (civil) regulation.

Right, I understand that the CFR are regulations, which are civil and not criminal, and I know where the requirement for a pilot certificate is located in the CFR. SD2 seems to have personal knowledge of an occurrence in which an unlicensed pilot was charged criminally. I don't know of a criminal statute requiring one, which was why I asked. Not saying that I'm completely convinced, without a citation, but I'm willing to consider that there are things I don't know.

You seem fairly confident that there is *not* such a criminal statute. Can you explain how you have come to such a conclusion?

I'm not trying to prove anyone in particular wrong, it's a question I've been interested in well before the current discussion, and it will probably take more than yes it is/ no it isn't to convince me one way or the other.

[Christina Young]

Christina,

While I share your concerns about becoming a nanny state, I do believe that a fundamental role of government is to provide for the safety of citizens. That's why we have police departments and fire departments, that's why governments enact laws. Please, let's not pull out our copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and argue about whether or not they explicitly authorize the creation of these entities. Let's just accept the fact that in America, governments do, in fact, endeavor to create and sustain a safe environment.

Okay, perhaps I should have been a little more nuanced in this. Safety is not the purpose of the federal government, which the constitution empowers. Yes I do believe that it is one of the concerns of the local government, which is why I mentioned a local ordinance is the right way to go if this endangers people on the ground.

Let me ask you this - if the pilot had been someone like 749er, licensed and experienced, and had an accident flipping their plane while doing a "water-assisted landing" in front of some people, would you feel the same way?


Your underlying logic of "no harm no foul" is fundamentally flawed. If a person walked through your neighborhood shooting a gun but not damaging any property other than his own you would still expect law enforcement to stop him and to charge him. The person shooting the gun is creating a risky situation in which someone might be hurt, and as long as he is shooting he is forcing others to accept the risk of being shot.

Actually, my neighbor does do this. So far all he's damaged is his own property, like you say, his grain silo. I do NOT expect law enforcement to stop him, as he is not breaking any laws (and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, they are "law enforcement officers", NOT "person safety officers", and are not liable for your safety or protection).

[Christina Young]

You seem fairly confident that there is *not* such a criminal statute. Can you explain how you have come to such a conclusion?

I did a quick search of the U.S. Code, something that you can do too! Right now, even!

[aalexander]

I did a quick search of the U.S. Code, something that you can do too! Right now, even!


Sure, I could. I have, before on various subjects. However, coming up empty on searches for the words "pilot" and "certificate" fall a bit short of conclusive proof that there is no way that a person can be criminally charged for flying without a pilot certificate. If such a possibility exists, it is likely not nearly as direct as "it is a crime to fly an airplane without a pilot certificate" It may derive less directly from some less obvious, but still legally valid provision in the criminal code. It would be a little more difficult to positively rule out such a situation.

I'd be interested in the process by which you've eliminated the possibility of applying something in the criminal code, which doesn't explicitly reference pilot certificates.

[aalexander]

Okay, perhaps I should have been a little more nuanced in this. Safety is not the purpose of the federal government, which the constitution empowers. Yes I do believe that it is one of the concerns of the local government, which is why I mentioned a local ordinance is the right way to go if this endangers people on the ground.

There is the interstate commerce clause. While I'm aware that the Interstate commerce clause is perhaps one of the most abused constitutional provisions around, in this case it is applicable. If you allow local governments to regulate aviation, you'd immediately have a completely unworkable situation. Having every small town council empowered to enact their own aviation laws? Or eve to prohibit flying in the skies above their jurisdiction, if they so chose?

So if the local governments do not have the jurisdiction to regulate aviation, then they can't be expected to regulate the safety of aviation. So you are left with the choice of the federal government regulating aviation safety, or no-one regulating aviation safety.

[jcrowles]

I strongly feel that one of the biggest problems this country has today, is no one wants to take responsibility for their actions !!! Far to many people want the Government to take care of them from cradle to grave !!! This country wasn't founded on that premise.

[mvivion]

Christina,

First of all, this was NOT 749er. As I noted earlier, this isn't just a guy out having a little fun.

Second, your notion that landing somehow excuses one from operating within 500 feet of people on the surface is just plain wrong, and that has been demonstrated in a number of FAA enforcement cases. READ the regulation, please.

Third, there are lots of criminal statutes that could fit this case, such as reckless endangerment, etc. You are correct in stating that these would be state or municipal statutes, though.

Fourth, the FAA has filed and won CRIMINAL cases based upon a pilot lying to the NTSB or FAA. As I noted earlier, read John Yodice's latest column in Pilot magazine. He cites specific case law there. The penalties for this can result in jail time and huge fines. Again, these were pursued CRIMINALLY, not civilly. It appears quite clear from this case that the young man spent a good deal of effort trying to hide his misdeeds.

Again, give a call to someone who's lost a family member or good friend in a DUI accident. I don't ascribe, as you suggest, to "prophylactic law enforcement", but it would appear that it's time this gent went to jail for his misdeeds to sort things out in his head before he hurts someone.

Finally, your argument that we all take risks is a specious argument in this case. Again, we all have the reasonable expectation of SAFETY as well as risk when we participate in activities like aviation. That is specifically WHY we have Federal Aviation Regulations--to provide for a SAFE operating environment for all aviators AND the general public.

MTV

[Speedo]

Actually, my neighbor does do this. So far all he's damaged is his own property, like you say, his grain silo.

OK, maybe I should have been a "bit more nuanced:" when I wrote neighborhood I meant urban neighborhood, not rural neighbor.

Now let me be a little less nuanced and more direct. When someone writes "let's agree to disagree" that is code for "this line of debate has become tedious and it's time to stop." You have to overcome the compulsion to have the last word.

Eric

[aalexander]

Two questions:

1. Is it legal to land there?
2. Was he in the process of landing?


and




The government's purpose is to protect people's liberty, constitutional rights, provide for justice and the common defense, not to provide safety to people (read the preamble of the Constitution for a better description of the govt's duties than I provide here). A certain famous quote about govt-provided safety by Ben Franklin also comes to mind here!

"Pursuing anyone who puts others at risk" is a recipe for a nanny state and a pretty broad order. When you drive to work every morning, you are putting others at risk! Whenever you fly a plane, no matter how safely you fly, you are putting others at risk! Do you want the government to pursue you, or shut down aviation?

I think this is more a local issue than an FAA one. If that area is a dangerous one for planes to land (dangerous to people on the ground), then they should make it off limits to aircraft by local ordinance.



Christina,

Two responses;

First, addressing the issue of legality under the current system and regulations without examining the broader questions of whether the regulations are just, appropriate, or in agreement with any particular philosophy and ignoring the question of the constitutionality of administrative law.

You're obviously attempting to invoke the “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing” clause in 91.119

Won't work. The videos on the KTUU site show three passes of the airplane. Two in one direction (downstream?) which no landing was made, and one in the opposite direction where it appears the plane rolls onto a sandbar. The two downstream (?) passes were clearly not attempts to land, nor was it even possible to land, he was in the middle of the river with no sand bar in sight. So the takeoff and landing clause doesn't apply. He wasn't landing and he couldn't have landed, and it appears he was within 500 ft of the people present.

Even if we ignore the downstream passes and consider only the pass(es) in which he was landing. A lot of folk believe that the “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing” clause in 91.119 is a free pass for anything you do in the process of landing or taking off.

It is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It means exactly what is say “Except when necessary”

And if you don't think the FAA will examine very closely what is or is not necessary for a takeoff or landing, you got another think coming. They do, and they do not necessarily accept the pilots judgment of that. And the NTSB does uphold their ability to do that. If you'd like I can post the NTSB decisions where the “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing” defense was attempted. It doesn't work.

Second, responding to whether it is appropriate for the federal government to regulate aviation safety, given that it has the mandate to regulate aviation. You seem to to be taking a pretty absolutist stance here. Let's try a hypothetical here: Let's say that you neighbor has a airplane, and every morning, when you walk out to your car, he's circling around, waiting, and as you walk to your car, he dives on you, and comes as close as he can to hitting you, without actually hitting you. I don't mean a friendly good morning buzz job, but coming within a few feet of hitting your head. Would you say it is outside to the Federal government's dictate (given that they have the responsibility for regulating aviation) to prohibit that behavior? Would you agree that in a just society the burden of your safety falls upon you to duck, or to move elsewhere?

[Christina Young]

I'd be interested in the process by which you've eliminated the possibility of applying something in the criminal code, which doesn't explicitly reference pilot certificates.

Yes, read U.S. Code Title 49. This is the one that deals with pilots certificates. There are NO criminal penalties.

[cubpilot2]

Second, your notion that landing somehow excuses one from operating within 500 feet of people on the surface is just plain wrong, and that has been demonstrated in a number of FAA enforcement cases. READ the regulation, please.


Mike
Are you saying that I can't operate within 500 ft of people when landing at any time without being in violation?
If so then it would be impossible to land or takeoff at Lake Hood in the channel as the feds built a picnic viewing area well within 100 ft of the water, and is constantly full of tourists leaning on the fence with their cameras.
Please clarify your statement.

[aalexander]

Second, your notion that landing somehow excuses one from operating within 500 feet of people on the surface is just plain wrong, and that has been demonstrated in a number of FAA enforcement cases. READ the regulation, please.


Mike
Are you saying that I can't operate within 500 ft of people when landing at any time without being in violation?
If so then it would be impossible to land or takeoff at Lake Hood in the channel as the feds built a picnic viewing area well within 100 ft of the water, and is constantly full of tourists leaning on the fence with their cameras.
Please clarify your statement.

At the risk of speaking for Mike, I don't think that's what he meant. Compliance with the altitudes and clearances in 91.119 is not required when it is *necessary* for takeoff and landing. That's the key, when it is necessary. If it is not necessary, but you don't comply with the requirements, just for the heck of it, expect the FAA to find that it was not *necessary* and find you in violation of 91.119.

[AntiCub]

The FAA is a regulatory agency, just like the EPA and can level civil fines. I read and article in Custom Planes years back when I was flying ultralights. There was a strong feeling among the local ultralight crowd at that time that "What can the FAA do? Take away our licenses? Ha Ha". The article dealt with the issue of heavy ultralights and listed the 7 individual violations that applied. It went on to state that the typical fine is $1,000 per violation. What I see for obvious violations here are the following:

Flying without a pilots certificate
Flying without a valid medical certificate
Flying a damaged plane without a ferry permit
Failing to report an incident
Flying within 500ft of persons or structures.
So there's $5,000 in fines right there, and I'm betting there were more.

And I hope for his sake everything was legal with the aircraft. Because it's one more violation for each of the AROW documents missing or out of annual too.

Phil

[aalexander]

Actually, my neighbor does do this. So far all he's damaged is his own property, like you say, his grain silo. I do NOT expect law enforcement to stop him, as he is not breaking any laws (and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, they are "law enforcement officers", NOT "person safety officers", and are not liable for your safety or protection).

OK, another hypothetical. You're living in town, in a subdivision with 6,000 square foot lots. on either side you have neighbors who are firearms enthusiasts. As a creative solution to the lots providing enough space for a shooting range, they prop up a bunch of beer cans on one guy's property and then get together on the other guys property and shoot at the beer cans. across your property and through your covered, unscreened breezeway between your house and your garage.


So in accordance with the view you stated in your post, and because the SCOTUS has determined that law enforcement are not liable for your safety, and because they haven't shot you *yet* you believe that it would be entirely inappropriate to request Law enforcement stop them from doing this? This seems to be what you are advocating.

[aalexander]

I'd be interested in the process by which you've eliminated the possibility of applying something in the criminal code, which doesn't explicitly reference pilot certificates.

Yes, read U.S. Code Title 49. This is the one that deals with pilots certificates. There are NO criminal penalties.

Uhhh, Christine you're not reading the question. the question was not

"Is there a criminal provision in title 49"

the question was and is, "How have you determined with absolute certainty that there is no criminal code anywhere in the entire body of federal law which could legally attach to flying an airplane without the appropriate certificate?

So far you haven't come anywhere close to answering the question asked.

[Christina Young]

There is the interstate commerce clause. While I'm aware that the Interstate commerce clause is perhaps one of the most abused constitutional provisions around, in this case it is applicable.

Actually, I DO believe that we need an entity like the FAA to set aviation standards and regulations. However, the ICC was not meant at all for something like this. It was meant to ensure free trade between the states.

The proper legal way of going about this is via a constitutional amendment to give this jurisdiction to Congress in much the same way as the framers did with admiralty and maritime law in Article III. Aviation is analogous to that. Of course, if airplanes were invented back then aviation would probably be covered by that same clause. But in today's reality it is a moot point since they are already doing it through ICC abuse as you say, right?


If you allow local governments to regulate aviation, you'd immediately have a completely unworkable situation. Having every small town council empowered to enact their own aviation laws? Or eve to prohibit flying in the skies above their jurisdiction, if they so chose?

So if the local governments do not have the jurisdiction to regulate aviation, then they can't be expected to regulate the safety of aviation. So you are left with the choice of the federal government regulating aviation safety, or no-one regulating aviation safety.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. They certainly CAN and DO regulate where planes can land. As an example, a floatplane can't land on any lake in New Jersey, save maybe one or two previously existing seaplane bases. From my understanding, this is because many years ago there was an accident at Lake Hopatcong in which a relative of a prominent politician was struck and killed by a float plane while water skiing. So New Jersey passed a law making landing on lakes illegal.

Are they regulating aviation safety?

[aalexander]

Uhhh, Christine you're not reading the question. the question was not

"Is there a criminal provision in title 49"

the question was and is, "How have you determined with absolute certainty that there is no criminal code anywhere in the entire body of federal law which could legally attach to flying an airplane without the appropriate certificate?

So far you haven't come anywhere close to answering the question asked.

Let me put a little differently with a hypothetical example. Suppose that there was a provision in the Administrative Procedures Act, which provided, under certain conditions, criminal penalties for, violations of adminstrative regulations, generally (not aviation regulations, specifically) ? Again, it's a hypothetical, so don't go rushing off the the APA to show that there's nothing like that there, but how do you know there's nothing of that nature?

[Christina Young]

Let's try a hypothetical here: Let's say that you neighbor has a airplane, and every morning, when you walk out to your car, he's circling around, waiting, and as you walk to your car, he dives on you, and comes as close as he can to hitting you, without actually hitting you. I don't mean a friendly good morning buzz job, but coming within a few feet of hitting your head. Would you say it is outside to the Federal government's dictate (given that they have the responsibility for regulating aviation) to prohibit that behavior? Would you agree that in a just society the burden of your safety falls upon you to duck, or to move elsewhere?

Actually, this scenario is very similar to one that actually happened involving a member of this site, I believe. As I remember, the course of action that was taken then was criminal assault with a deadly weapon. I fail to see how this is any different.

Look, the whole idea here is that crimes should be handled at the lower levels of government (state and local) if possible. This federalization of every crime under the sun is not only the most expensive way of doing it for taxpayers and society, but also a big reason for the gigantic growth in government and the associated constituencies that grow up around it. Did you know that when this country was founded there were only 3 federal crimes? It was thought that the state and local governments had the capability to take care of everything else except for those 3. Do you know what they were?

[aalexander]

Are they regulating aviation safety?

To a degree, yes. My understanding is that the ability to do that at the local level ends when contact with the surface ends. eg: Local jurisdictions cannot enact their own local altitude restrictions which are more restrictive than 91.119 (it's been tried)

So in my hypothetical with you neighbor who every day tries to get as close to hitting you as he possibly can, without actually hitting you: He's not subject to local jurisdiction because he's not in contact with the ground. Are you saying that the FAA has no business prohibiting him from doing that?

[aalexander]

Actually, this scenario is very similar to one that actually happened involving a member of this site, I believe. As I remember, the course of action that was taken then was criminal assault with a deadly weapon. I fail to see how this is any different.

2 responses:

1) He also lost his pilot certificate. are you saying that was an inappropriate action on the part of the FAA? That they should have just butted out and taken no action?


2) In another post you said that according to the SCOTUS, law enforcement is not there to protect people, so as nearly as I can tell, in *that* post, the state troopers should have not intervened until he actually killed someone.





Did you know that when this country was founded there were only 3 federal crimes? It was thought that the state and local governments had the capability to take care of everything else except for those 3. Do you know what they were?

Not of the top of my head, what are they. I think Treason is one.....)

[Christina Young]

the question was and is, "How have you determined with absolute certainty that there is no criminal code anywhere in the entire body of federal law which could legally attach to flying an airplane without the appropriate certificate?

So far you haven't come anywhere close to answering the question asked.

AA, you are twisting what I said into knots. I just told you that there are no laws in the U.S. criminal code against flying without a pilots license, based upon my search of that.

I invite you to prove me wrong. I will not be lulled in to proving a negative.

[aalexander]

AA, you are twisting what I said into knots. I just told you that there are no laws in the U.S. criminal code against flying without a pilots license, based upon my search of that.

I invite you to prove me wrong. I will not be lulled in to proving a negative.


But you appeared to me to be asserting that same negative. Perhaps you intended in a more limited manner, but I took your statement to mean that you were certain a person could not get a criminal penalty for flying an airplane without an appropriate certificate.

[Christina Young]

2 responses:

1) He also lost his pilot certificate. are you saying that was an inappropriate action on the part of the FAA? That they should have just butted out and taken no action?

Oh give me a break. That is a CIVIL action. We are talking about criminal law here.



2) In another post you said that according to the SCOTUS, law enforcement is not there to protect people, so as nearly as I can tell, in *that* post, the state troopers should have not intervened until he actually killed someone.

They are there to enforce the law. Assault with a deadly weapon certainly is a crime (even in Alaska)!

AA, you seem to be getting your panties in a wad. Just because someone does something bad or illegal with an airplane doesn't mean that only the Feds have jurisdiction! This is a prime case in point.

[aalexander]

Oh give me a break. That is a CIVIL action. We are talking about criminal law here.

well, actually, we have a couple of different ideas being discussed, Federal criminal penalties for aviation infractions is only one. We are also discussing the appropriateness of federal and state governments to provide safety for citizens, a separate topic. If you're unable to maintain concurrent discussions on separate topics without getting confused we cold take it a lttle slower.



AA, you seem to be getting your panties in a wad.


I'm a little disappointed that you feel it necessary to resort to such ad-hominem comments. I'd sort of expected better from you. No my panties are not in a wad, I'm interested in these topics and I'm interested in your positions on them. I had assumed that you were secure enough in your convictions to have them challenged and probed a little, and politely clarify misunderstandings without resorting to insults.

[Christina Young]

I'm a little disappointed that you feel it necessary to resort to such ad-hominem comments. I'd sort of expected better from you. No my panties are not in a wad, I'm interested in these topics and I'm interested in your positions on them. I had assumed that you were secure enough in your convictions to have them challenged and probed a little, and politely clarify misunderstandings without resorting to insults.

AA, I am sorry, I did not mean this as an ad hominem attack. It's just that some of your responses are so ridiculous (such as the 6000 foot square shooting thing, which didn't even warrant a response), that I couldn't help thinking that you are getting upset.

I am signing off now, I have work to do and this is just sucking up my time. This is why I don't post much on this site anymore.

[mike mcs repair]

yes xxx


no yyy



rinse, repeat..............


so nice to have some of the old faces back here again, was getting boring.... even saw SB on here yesterday & MTV jabbing...

[aalexander]

yes xxx


no yyy



rinse, repeat..............


Watch out for the spin cycle.

[S2D]

"flying without a license" was the crime. I saw the actual code, but can't remember where it is. He went to court, got it reduced to a fine and probation.

Thanks. I didn't know that there was such a criminal statute.


Well, according to Christina there isn't, so I"ll defer to her.

I just know they hauled the guy before a Federal judge, In a Federal court in Billings.

And they law they cited, which was nowhere close to resembling an FAR. was somewhere else in the Federal Codes.

Maybe DJ will take a little time of from his retirement and tell us what that code is.

[aalexander]

It's just that some of your responses are so ridiculous (such as the 6000 foot square shooting thing, which didn't even warrant a response), that I couldn't help thinking that you are getting upset.


No, not upset at all, I'm perfectly calm. I think that extreme examples are often useful to consider the limits of a philosophy. I'd assumed that you understood the concept of Reductio ad absurdum. There was a reason for that particular hypothetical. The point of that was that at some point, it becomes appropriate and necessary for the government to prevent people from presenting risks to others, a position which you seemed to be opposing. Once that principle is established, then the discussion can proceed to how much, by whom, and when, but you were doing a very credible job of appearing to reject that principle.

[courierguy]

On a vaguely related subject: two local powered parachute pilots were arrested a while back for shooting coyotes from the air on BLM ground. They were tried in Federal court, and I'm sorry to say I do not know the outcome, it was not in the local rag anyway. I do know they confiscated their machines, which were "fat" ultralights. I do know it cost them a wad of cash for lawyers!

[Steve Pierce]

Hey Speedo(Eric), Remember that PM you sent me a year or so ago? :lol: :wink:

[strangeak]

I don't know of the legalities of what he should or should not be charged with.

I have a son that's given me the pleasure of getting to know a few blue fellas over some late night conversations, I can say that if it were him, he would be the butt of the joke as the 5 doctors and 15 nurses giggled, laughed and posted you tube videos of the size 9 boot extraction from his posterior. Even at 26 he would be replacing it or making it right to my satisfaction.

The flying aside, the DUI's are more than enough for me to justify my position that I don't want to be anywhere near him operating a tricycle, let alone alone a car, plane, boat or even a fork.

[16-bravo]

I have read through most of your post, and I do agree with most of what is being said. As far as him flipping his cub, that really sucks, but it could happen to any one of us. Obviously he could have picked a better place to practice his water landings. But I think that the bigger issue here is why is he not in jail for all the DWI's. What does the law do, just slap you on the back of the hand, and say "don't do it again." I am not trying to stick up for him, but he represents a pretty large percentage of people flying around up here. I could probably think of a dozen people flying around right now without a licence, and no plans on getting one.

I'm just glad that I am not one of them, because I think that they are going make an example out of him, and start cracking down on the rest of them.

[mit greb]

I heard he painted his toe nails too....sigh.... :roll: That should get him a firing squad :roll:

Freedom isn't free! Someone has to go out there and screw it up for the rest of us! :drinking:

Maybe it will be you tomorrow! :bad-words:

[ndill]

Or maybe the fathers as much of a trainwreck as the son. Like father like son.

[Snert]

God I hope not.

[WindOnHisNose]

Perhaps this fellow suffers from yet another variant of the dreaded Bushwheel-Induced Hypertestosteronism (BIHT). We have previously reported another variant, bushwheel-induced hypotestosteronism (aka BIHT). Apparently this poor 26 year old overdosed on bushwheels, driving him to play in the shallow end of the gene pool (I love that Darwinian description).

Randy

[HATIN11R]

Well after reading just about all of the comments/opinions/tirades etc. here is what I have concluded: 1) this guy has hurt us ALL by his actions 2) his willfull disregard for law and safety is INEXCUSABLE... PERIOD. 3) if this behavior,i.e DUI/DWI, FLYING W/OUT LIC./MEDICAL,LYING,COVER-UP and on and on,continues.....someone WILL GET SERIOUSLY HURT OR KILLED!!! 4) this guy deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. 5) I HAVE NO TOLERATION FOR THIS KIND OF PILOT WANNA-BE AND I HOPE THEY NAIL HIS ASS!!!! I'm tired of all this tip-toe around the subject just because he flew a Super Cub or what ever.I love all aircraft including the S.C.,but to defend or trivalize this event is wrong.This guy is the ENEMY not the FAA,local police etc.The sooner this guy grows up and takes responsibility for his actions the better.We in G.A. cannot afford to have these kind of jerks making the news and further casting a dark cloud on all of us.However, what the real issue about this guy is, just like the movie said,"Your reckless and dangerous". O.K. I'm done.........p.s......I realize CAPS on the computer is SHOUTING. Have a nice day ya'll.......Herman.

[S2D]

I do not believe there is any provision in the U.S. criminal code for this. Pilot license requirements are FAA regulations only, i.e. administrative, civil regulations. From my understanding the only thing the FAA could do is impose whatever civil penalties are in the regulations.



Look up this:


US Code (not regulation) Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A subpart iii Chapter 44711, (a) (2) (A)


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00044711----000-.html




Christina

Technically you are probably right, it is not listed in the "crimes" in Title 18 "Crimes and Criminal Procedure"
However, only our definition of criminal differs. Mine is, anytime they can throw you in jail for something, it is a crime. (Right or wrong)

Just interested in your take on this part of the code. This is for air commerce, so may not apply to someone not doing it for hire,
Brian

[Coyote Ugly]

A lynch mob and a piece of rope can be a pretty dangerous thing too...

[HATIN11R]

Let me clarify.The plane accident is just another piece to this persons irresponsible personality,behavior and daily life.This IS the problem and I stand by my words: HE WILL EVENTUALLY KILL SOMEONE!!! The proof is in the pudding.4 DUI's????? No problem,I'll just fly anyway.And while I'm at it since I don't give a DAMN about rules and regulations,"I don't need no stinking pilots lic.or medical". And while I'm at it I'll just crack up my dad's plane and then beg the witnesses to"please don't call the poilce".See I can't even take responsibility for "ANY OF MY ACTIONS".As a matter of fact I'll just hide the wreck until I can get others to help me out of this mess....Come on people,doesn't any of this BOTHER YOU FOLKS??????? This guy is a living breathing train wreck just waiting to take others with him.SO NO I don't think this is a case of "lynch mob and rope".Let's treat this guy for what he is.A DANGEROUS TIME BOMB just waiting for the big kill.Folks don't be blinded just because he happened to crack up a plane that this group loves.Truth is truth and right and wrong are not the same.The only thing that will hopefully change this guy is for someone to finally hold his feet to the fire!! Yes I'm pissed and I hope some of ya'll are. I'm not attacking anyone here but I am voicing my opinion.Yes it is strong but so are my convictions about this subject.I will apologize up front to anyone here if you have been offended by my remarks.But as far as this guy goes,his actions speak for his character and he is truly the ENEMY TO ALL OF SOCIETY!O.k. I'm done.I can't make my point any more than I have.As a matter of fact I'm gonna pray for this guy to change his attitude toward all this stuff and for myself for being so mad at it all.See I'm not infallible either........but I will admit it and ask for forgiveness, right here on the spot.I feel better already......Herman.

[cafi19]

I'm with you Herman.

I can understand why people are worried about our rights as pilots....but this guy is no friend of ours. By that I mean that it is people like this....with this blatant disregard for everything.... and yes....with so many dui's that cause the kind of knee jerk reactions that restrict us yet further. It is because of this very thing that lawmakers feel the need to impose or enact more limitations on our freedoms as pilots.

Do we know he was not drinking here too? I'd say nope...we sure dont. My guess is that he was.

I for one hope that HE is restricted now...the way he should have been long before this incident.

cafi

[HATIN11R]

Gee Cafi,for awhile there I thought I was the Lone Ranger.Thanx for alittle company.Now I can hang up my mask and hat......Herman.

[HATIN11R]

Anyone have a update on "Mr.Irresponsible"? Shame to let such a heated topic go out to pasture.......Herman.

[freestone]

I agree with Herman.

the guy didn't have a license. I don't care Christina that he only hurt his plane and it is between him and his dad since it only is a civil issue.

I do care that I am sharing airspace with someone that probably hasn't been properly trained and tested, and clearly doesnt care for the rules that I fly by - that keeps us all save.

You can be sure that if there wasn't teeth in the law before this episode, this guy will cost us and there will be serious teeth afterwards put in and to the detriment of all of us.

I am not a big fan of the FAA/NTSB on many of their rules etc, but the fundamental one that we need to have a license to fly I am ok with.

Sounds like the same logic about whether pay taxes is legal or not...

[freestone]

Does this sound similar? Clearly someone felt a (criminal) law was violated...
just the paperwork or the lying...
or working commercially...



Title: Texan Jailed for Flying Without a Pilot’s License
Date: February 11, 2003
Type: Investigation
Summary: Cornie Gene Lowe was ordered by a U.S District Court judge in Del Rio, TX, to pay a $5,000 fine and spend 6 months in jail for piloting a plane without a pilot’s license and lying to the FAA. Lowe flew as pilot-in-command from Del Rio to Ruidoso, NM, even though FAA revoked his pilot's license in December 2001. He also made false entries in airman logbooks as though he were a certified flight instructor and signed off biennial flight reviews of other pilots when he was not authorized to do so. Lowe co-owns Fontera Aviation, Inc, an aircraft fuel business at Del Rio International Airport in Texas. OIG conducted the investigation with assistance from FAA.

[freestone]

triple post

[aktango58]

While not agreeing that the idiot in Anchorage should be ignored, (can we take him from the gene pool?), the case in Texas was also about him still acting as a CFI, and fraud.

A guy can kill himself as far as I am concerned, wish they would do it by choking on the senate bill for health care, but they can do it.

When you take innocent folks with you, that is a problem.

When you lie to the public and say "I can sign you off"; put them in jail.

[freestone]

The problem I am having in these arguments where you are just threatening yourself and your equipment, is giving these guys who deliberately break rules the benefit of the doubt as to which rules they can break that only has risk to him and his property. Is he landing at an airport in the pattern with us? Does he violate airspace because he doesnt know about it or doesnt think anyone else is in it? Does he check notams? Is he in radio contact? Does he not have his annual done or routine maintenance because he doesn't think it is necessary and his engine or flight controls fail over a city?

So many of these things should not be his judgment as to which rule to ignore since he doesn't feel like it, and it may well have impacts on the rest of us - directly or indirectly via more regulation on those of us that are abiding.

And starting with NO LICENSE at all is a major one, at least to me. Violate that and who cares about all the smaller rules.

Who cares which way a traffic pattern runs.

Ah well... since we are all responsible on this website we want no regulation basically (I wish a lot of it would go away) but guys like this make it occur to us.

[jr.hammack]

just to stir the pot,but how dose all the rules,laws
regulations,certificates, federal,state,local pistol packers or other wise protect you from any action if some idiot pulls a stupid stunt????

LAWS JUST REMIND THE HONEST TO OBEY !!!!


jr. :o

[aktango58]

Whats a notam? :wink:

Radio? where does it say we need a radio?

Traffic pattern... just a guide where I land some times...

JR has it correct; and locks are to keep honest folks honest.

it is against the law to drive drunk. How many folks are killed/hurt because of some other twit did not follow that law?

I agree on the attention issue, but really, it sounds like this individual has more stick ability than some of our members! (it was not his first pass)

I will agree on his judgment being bad. My bet his father has more pull on the issue after his cub got bent :oops:

Many of the REGULATIONS you refer to do not signify a person of bad judgment, but one against authority. There are folks that fly for years without a license, often because it is inconvenient for them to get to a place to take the silly tests. Not that they can not fly, talk on the radio, make good choices. Heck, Orville and Wilbur did not have any proper certifications, and they did their own wrenching!

This incident, a definite twit. but with 4 dwis, what will really change him?