Originally Posted by
jaxsurf
I doubt that any law enforcement agency cares about how tempted someone was to do something that's not legal.
"But your honor, I was really, really, really, really tempted!!"
I've flown under bridges, powerlines, and numerous other obstacles thouosands of times.
But yes, intent does count for a lot, as does motivation. In fact, in this case, Ms. Lunken stated that she was tempted, and succumbed to that temptation.
The point in addressing the temptation of such acts, as it's clearly sailed over your head, is that the temptation to which Ms. Lunken was party is hardly an aberration on her part, and easy to understand.
What law enforcement "thinks" in this case, is irrelevant. This is an FAA issue. Regarding FAA enforcement action, a cornerstone of current enforcement doctrine is the motivation of the airman, and their attitude of compliance. The attitude of compliance does not relate only to the event that has triggered the enforcement action, but his or her response thereafter, and motivation and intent, and the responses of the airman, are central to that process.
The FAA just isn't very good at following that process.