Water Skiing Accident

[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 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 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]

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.

 

[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.