Martha Lunken got her tickets yanked.
 

How did an ex FAA Safety Manager ever think that was a good idea?

https://amp.cincinnati.com/amp/70892...jLgb4-2xC7uIrs

Sounds like she got what she deserved.

And that article is completely ridiculous. Total puff piece that makes it sound like flying under a bridge is just a bit of innocent fun.

Strange. But in reality not necessarily dangerous to anyone on the ground, and maybe not dangerous to the pilot assuming the site was recon-ed in advance (ie no wires or other surprises). For pilots of her era, this kind of thing was not unheard of, and I've even done similar myself in the 70's (as a non-pilot pax child, with my uncle flying). The cool uncle of course.

Hopefully she gets here tickets back, but I imagine the hassle and expense will probably discourage any more stunts.

Be interesting to see what she has to say in her Flying mag column...

Reminds me of the American fliers who crisscrossed flying under the Eiffel Tower to celebrate VE Day of WWII.

I heard my dad’s friend, who was on the ground, describe what he saw. Amazing.

This makes for a great story of who is Martha.

I bet there was an SOB in the office pushing for revocation.

I've flown under bridges. And under a lot of powerlines.

It's not unsafe if one knows what one is doing.

Not everything safe, is legal. Not everything legal, is safe.

Violating Ms. Lunken for this was chicken****. But legal.

How is this strange, mystifying, or indicative of someone having a grudge against her? She flew under a 239 ft bridge, and she wasn’t doing ag flying.

How could anyone think this was legal?

As a flying obsessed kid, I watched two biplanes loop the Mid-Hudson bridge in NY. I thought it was cool and I doubt anything came of it. I’d like to see an accounting of where the FAA saw her actions endangered anyone. I’m not pro-stupid flying acts, by the way, but there needs to be fewer bureaucratic witch hunts. One any given day vastly more people are endangered or killed by stupid, reckless drivers, but that scene rolls on.

Nobody, not one soul has stated that is it legal, so how is that relevant?

What she did does not rise to the level of revocation of all her certificates. A suspension, perhaps, but a full revocation is the nuclear option, and the FAA took it. Very hooveresque.

And chicken****.

They probably used some TSA-esque "hazard to infrastructure" to rationalize it. Maybe Martha got radicalized.