Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 90

Thread: Water Skiing Accident

  1. #41
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedo
    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).

  2. #42
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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!

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young

    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.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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.

  5. #45
    jcrowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    bemidji,mn.56601
    Posts
    234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Water skiing accident

    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.

  6. #46
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,465
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  7. #47
    Speedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    1,721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young

    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
    Speedo

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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?

  9. #49
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

  10. #50
    cubpilot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    727
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Ed

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  12. #52
    AntiCub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    476
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

  15. #55
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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?

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 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?

  17. #57
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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?

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young

    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?

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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.....)

  20. #60
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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.

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young

    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.

  22. #62
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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.

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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.

  24. #64
    Christina Young's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
    Posts
    1,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander

    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.

  25. #65
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    yes xxx

    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    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...

  26. #66

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    yes xxx

    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    no yyy

    rinse, repeat..............
    Watch out for the spin cycle.

  27. #67
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,060
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aalexander
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  28. #68

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young
    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.

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    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!

  30. #70
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hey Speedo(Eric), Remember that PM you sent me a year or so ago?
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  31. #71
    strangeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    211
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  32. #72
    16-bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    wasilla, ak
    Posts
    417
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fairbanks Alaska
    Posts
    627
    Post Thanks / Like
    I heard he painted his toe nails too....sigh.... That should get him a firing squad

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

    Maybe it will be you tomorrow!
    Tim

  34. #74

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Austin TX Ya'll
    Posts
    685
    Post Thanks / Like
    Or maybe the fathers as much of a trainwreck as the son. Like father like son.

  35. #75
    Snert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,761
    Post Thanks / Like
    God I hope not.

  36. #76
    WindOnHisNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lino Lakes MN (MY18)
    Posts
    4,189
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  37. #77

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint,Idaho
    Posts
    279
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  38. #78
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,060
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Christina Young

    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/h...1----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
    I may be wrong but that probably won't stop me from arguing about it.

  39. #79
    Coyote Ugly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middle of Nevada
    Posts
    543
    Post Thanks / Like
    A lynch mob and a piece of rope can be a pretty dangerous thing too...
    "Pops Dory"
    They used to say there are no old, bold pilots, Hell, looka here...

  40. #80

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint,Idaho
    Posts
    279
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Water-skiing in a Cirrus?
    By Ruidoso Ron in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-10-2007, 09:01 AM
  2. Water Skiing techniques.
    By lowflyin'G3 in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-29-2002, 07:03 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •