Martha Lunken got her tickets yanked.
04-26-2021, 05:53 AM
#31
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Used to be that we just turned off the damn transponder.
04-26-2021, 03:07 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 343
Just a WAG, but going by her written works, I'd imagine that over the years she poked a great many eyes over there at the Cincinnati FSDO. Before and after she retired! No doubt they've been waiting a long time to throw the book at her.
IMHO, this complete revocation was overboard, but she bears some responsibility for her situation.
IMHO, this complete revocation was overboard, but she bears some responsibility for her situation.
04-26-2021, 08:16 PM
#35
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
To get right to it though.......what does someone who's almost 80 yrs old have to lose by flying anyway under a revoked ticket? Another revocation? LOL
If you were to do it for commercial purposes, definitely federal prison and/or big fines, but I don't think that law applies to private pilot type activities.
04-27-2021, 03:05 PM
#36
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
04-27-2021, 03:51 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: Cubicle dweller
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Pretty crap article but the difference between Harrison Ford and Martha Lunken is he made a MISTAKE, she did it KNOWING it was illegal. When you get to breaking a reg on purpose, Compliance Action is off the table.
04-27-2021, 04:20 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 627
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but any half decent aviation attorney should have been able to mitigate her revocation, into perhaps a 120-180 day suspension.
Not only because that seems to have been a typical penalty for intentionally violating 91.119, but ALSO because of the stale complaint rule, since it took over a YEAR for the revocation order to come her way.
Not at all saying a halfway decent attorney could have gotten her off, but absolutely SHOULD have been successful in getting the FAA to settle for a fairly lengthy certificate action suspension, instead of emergency revocation.
That should be only used for the worst of the WORST offenses, like flying under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or drug trafficking.
Not only because that seems to have been a typical penalty for intentionally violating 91.119, but ALSO because of the stale complaint rule, since it took over a YEAR for the revocation order to come her way.
Not at all saying a halfway decent attorney could have gotten her off, but absolutely SHOULD have been successful in getting the FAA to settle for a fairly lengthy certificate action suspension, instead of emergency revocation.
That should be only used for the worst of the WORST offenses, like flying under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or drug trafficking.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
