Huell

Where I live we had a Delta F/O that would show up at the ball fields in full uniform including the hat. He wasn’t going to or from work or stopping to get a glimpse of his kids ... no, he said he was there to set a good example and inspire the kids. There was plenty of laughter by the parents.

JohnBurke

Are you genuinely curious? You do seem to miss the point with some consistency. You quoted me discussing the temptation of the act for which Ms. Lunken is punished, and mocked that temptation. You quoted me mentioning that I've felt that temptation many times, and mocked my quote, suggesting that temptation means nothing. Okay, fine. Temptation means nothing without action, you say.

Because I speak for myself and not for you or anyone else, I use my own experiences and words, and as you mocked my words and suggested that "temptation" is meaningless or irrelevant, I also included my own experience, which is having done what Ms. Lunken did, thousands of times over the span of the last four decades. And no, it's not that big of a deal. Not once did the universe shudder from its foundation. Not once did scores of children follow the act and die in droves, and not once did the national airspace rend in two and fall tattered to the national floor in a puddle of collective tears. In fact, nothing happened.

Now, should the uninitiated be diving under powerlines and bridges and other obstacles, without reason and without cause, and without adequate training and experience? No. Hence the regulation. There is a big difference between flying under a bridge with several hundred feet vertically and laterally, and passing under a lower, tighter object.

You may not feel any sympathy for Ms. Lunken. You're under no obligation to do so. We might postulate all day long about comparisons, but the fact is that her actions did not rise to the level of revocation of all her certification. Were you to bust an altitude or land on a taxiway or have a runway incursion, to revoke your certificates would be extreme overkill; a suspension would be in order, and you'd almost certainly have prevented that by availing yourself of ASRS, ASAP, etc. If you were to lose everything you ever worked for and all your certification, others might say you brought it on yourself, because you may have violated the regulation....but the fact is that you wouldn't have invited more on yourself than perhaps administrative action. The nuclear option, revocation, not so much.

No, Ms. Lunken did not bring revocation on herself. Certainly she brought a potential investigation on herself, but this is not what happened. Well past the stale complaint rule, she received a revocation long after the fact. Not a letter of investigation. Not a legal exchange; this was a hooveresque emergency action; a revocation with the implication that Ms Lunken is a public danger, and a danger to herself, which is pure bull****. She's a wealth of experience, and a little old lady who happens to have five + decades of experience (who should have known better), but who did nothing that rose to the level of revocation.

Over-reach would be an extreme understatement, here.

Huell

Yes this is true ... but they have only been that way since 1958.

pangolin

I love the picture of Air Force One.

501kp

.......................

aeroengineer

Mexico sorry

JamesNoBrakes

Correct, intent would have to be proven. It would not apply for a randomly malfunctioning unit.

JamesNoBrakes

Any regulation that says “no person may” could apply, but it would likely be limited to civil penalties. Most states have statutes requiring licenses/certificates, so it becomes a state matter.

JamesNoBrakes

Having seen this play out before, if counsel believes they have a solid case, they will not let it be “pled down” and they will take it to court, no matter what the other attorney does. They (FAA counsel) already consider mitigating factors based on the information they have. If they feel its solid and there are no conflicts, they will not negotiate. The order of the NTSB judge could change things, but again if the facts in the hearing are as claimed by the FAA, they will not. I know they have increased the magnitude of penalties in some cases. Of course in others, they’ve thrown out the case or sanctioned the FAA when they didnt have their facts right.

Lastly, the standard of evidence for revocation (as opposed to suspension) is very high. If they didn’t have this level, they (FAA) would likely get creamed in court asking for a revocation. If someone has information that contradicts the FAA facts and the case isnt modified or dropped, thats what court is for. Most attorneys do not want to be made a fool and again, the FAA can end up getting sanctioned if they screw up.

For further reading, go to the NTSB administrative law page and read some of the recent case decisions. Thats really the best insight into this. If the subject here didn’t ever appeal or go to hearing, it wont be there obviously, but the case decisions that are there give a lot of insight to what the standards of proof are.

rickair7777

Some insight into FAA thinking on this subject...

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/art...-b-go-to-jail/