JohnBurke

Keep in mind that Sandy Murdock, who wrote the article, is also the former FAA Chief Legal Counsel.

Ms. Lunken was an FAA inspector, but most of her years "working for the FAA" were as a designated examiner, I believe, and as an FAA Inspector, she managed the safety program.

Frankly, when I see an object with as much room under it as the Jeremiah Morrow bridge, one of the first things that crosses my mind is the urge to fly under it...even if I'm just driving by. I remember visiting the Kingdom Center in Riyadh, and having lunch in the cafe on top of the hole in the building, above the "eye of the needle." The conversation centered on flying through that space in the building, and though none of us did it, everyone found it quite tempting.

When I did the Sabreliner program at Flight Safety in St. Louis many years ago, the first thing the instructor did when we got in the simulator was have us all do passes through the St. Louis arch. "Get it out of your system now," he said. "Everybody asks, so just fly through it a few times now, get it out of your system, and let's get back to business." As a kid, we chased each other in cubs, aeroncas, and Cessnas beneath bridges and power lines on a river, when we were learning ag. Back then I got scared if we had to climb above 500'.

It's hard to feel a lot of malice toward someone who's been looking at that bridge for much of her flying life, which spans more than half a century, and felt the urge to do it just once, on her bucket list. I'd have done it, too. I don't blame her a bit.

Would she have taken that action with someone, when she was an inspector? No, she wouldn't.

The bar is set fairly low for FAA inspectors. The vacancy announcement presently says that the applicant must have no more than two aircraft accidents attributable to him or her, on their record. That an inspector would go after her like this isn't particularly shocking, given what I've seen from inspectors over the years, and given the quality of individuals I've seen accepted into the program as inspectors. It's deplorable, and shameful, but not particularly surprising. That said, this action didn't come from an inspector, but was certainly initiated there.

it's true that Ms. Lunken's event was not inadvertent, and was, in fact, an intentional violation of the regulation. To pursue it to the degree of revocation of all certification is extreme, and unwarranted. Likewise, the pursuit of her certification via 709 ride following a runaway after a hand-propping incident in the cub was almost certainly overzealous and almost certainly the result of an inspector with no experience hand propping aircraft or operating aircraft that lack an electrical system.

There's absolutely the strong likelihood that a nose or two may have been wrinkled over the years with someone or someone's waiting in the wings to go after Ms. Lunken, somewhat the same way that the vindictive vengeful potshot at Hoover took his medical by emergency revocation, when he failed to return to his parking spot (with both engines shut off). Hoover's case stunk, and this one does, too.

Many years ago, I was called into the office of the head of a FSDO and behind a closed door, told to go buy a dozen roses for the secretary outside. I was told that if I didn't do it, I'd be violated. I enquired regarding what I might be violated for, and was told he'd find a reason...just do as I was told. I kid not. I bought the damn flowers. Is there any doubt in my mind regarding the stupidity, bureaucracy, corruptness, and unprofessionalism that can be found at the local FSDO, anywhere, on any given day? I could easy fill a thick volume with those events...and no, there's no doubt in my mind.

I don't know Ms. Lunken personally, though no doubt she'd be a delight to engage an afternoon in conversation at the local airport cafe. I doubt I'll be alive long enough to reach her age, but should I do so, I'd be quite pleased to still be aviating actively, and enjoying myself, and yes, there's a very good chance I'd be flying under that bridge, too. It wouldn't be the first.

Bahamasflyer

As I alluded to in my previous post...WHY does it seems she didn’t have legal representation? Any attorney who deals with enforcement actions could have easily pled this kind of revocation down to a 120 day suspension

aeroengineer

I heard a story that a B-52 made a (very) low approach on the USS Lexington in the gulf in the 60s. Supposedly made quite a sh*tstorm especially because an admiral was onboard that day. Anyone else hear about that?

JohnBurke

The word is "pleaded," and that's not how the enforcement system works.

TiredSoul

Having worked with the FAA not for the FAA and having been both at the right side and at the wrong side of the stick I can categorically state that I would NEVER deal with the FAA without legal representation.
Phone call? Ring ring hello, we would like to ask you a couple of questions?
No thank you, not until I retain legal representation.

The FAA is one of the most non standardized institutions in aviation and a conglomerate of little fiefdoms and adherence to tribal law.
Here we are led to believe the “new and improved” FAA is no longer about vindictive prosecution.

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!!"

JohnBurke

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.

jaxsurf

I'm genuinely curious why you keep mentioning this. Are you trying to say that it's safe to fly under bridges/powerlines/etc? Are you trying to say that it's legal? I honestly don't know why this is relevant.

Yes, the point of this truly has sailed over my head. As someone who doesn't feel the need to indulge in whims and petty temptations, and thereby put my certificates on the line, I am truly mystified by this whole situation.

It's not that I don't understand the temptation, I definitely do (although if I had ever done anything unsafe or illegal I certainly wouldn't post about it here), it's just that I can't really bring myself to feel bad for her. It sounds like the FAA went too far, but she brought this on herself.

rickair7777

Which gulf? Tonkin? Arabian? That could have resulted in friendly fire.

Mexico... I could see that happening.

rickair7777

Was she subjected to vindictive and unnecessary over reach? Probably.

Did she set herself up for that, especially given that she had inside baseball on how the FSFO works? Absolutely.

Can I relate to the temptation to fly under a bridge? Yes. Do I have any sympathy for her predicament? No.