40 pilots busted in the San Francisco area

P

PoAdeleted5

Deleted by User Request
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
385
40 pilots grounded in the San Francisco area. Charges (felony) may be filed.

Seems the FAA went and compared current medical certificates with claims for disability. Found 40 pilots who were on disability for various things from HIV to schizophrenia and drug abuse, yet were still flying and didn't disclose on their medicals.

Followed by the usual talking heads, "A twin engine full of explosives..."

I kid you not.

Our days are numbered.
 
larrysb said:
Seems the FAA went and compared current medical certificates with claims for disability. Found 40 pilots who were on disability for various things from HIV to schizophrenia and drug abuse, yet were still flying and didn't disclose on their medicals.
Click to expand...
Sigh.....
 
Well, according to the FAA*, the San Francisco FSDO has 4666 active pilots, so that works out to 0.8%... That's not bad IMHO.

While I realize there should be 0, I don't think it will ever be... Just my 2 cents.

*According to the Active Pilots Summary dated July 2, 2005.
 
Last edited:
What concerns me is the violation of privacy issues. OK, disability records are public. But, how soon before the patriot act is being used to compare prescription records or medical histories against medical? This is really scary. The potential for abuse or mistake is stunning

I know the FAA is only doing their job but still....


Full Story below


While collecting disability benefits, they claimed they were fit to fly, officials say.
By Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

Forty airplane pilots have been indicted in five California cities, including 17 in Sacramento, on charges that they falsified medical records required to get a pilot's license.
The federal grand jury indictments are the culmination of an 18-month investigation and were announced Monday by officials of the agencies that participated in the probe.

In addition to Sacramento, grand juries in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Fresno returned felony indictments.

"The fraud and falsification allegedly committed by these individuals are extremely serious and adversely affect the public interest in air safety," Nicholas Sabatini, the Federal Aviation Administration's associate administrator for aviation safety, said in the prepared announcement.

Fourteen pilots have already had their licenses and medical certificates revoked, according to the announcement, and the "FAA has notified the remaining pilots ... that their pilots' licenses and medical certificates may be suspended."

The Medical Airman Certificate is the key document to obtaining and maintaining an active FAA pilot's license, the announcement said.

"While claiming to be medically fit to fly an airplane, the defendants were also collecting disability benefits from the Social Security Administration based on serious medical and psychological conditions which would have prevented them from operating an aircraft," the announcement said.

It said investigators focused on the most egregious cases, with illnesses ranging from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and drug or alcohol addiction to disabling back conditions and severe heart problems.

The 40 pilots indicted represent "the most blatant instances of fraud" selected after a review of 40,000 pilots, which was begun in July 2003.

Among the 40 are "a number of airline transport and commercial pilots."

In every case, according to the announcement, the pilots failed to notify the FAA of their medical conditions when completing their FAA medical applications.

In addition, the pilots failed to disclose their flight medical examination results to the Social Security Administration.

By failing to disclose the FAA's determination that they were fit to fly, some of the defendants fraudulently obtained disability benefits.

The pilots charged in Sacramento federal court are:
 
Last edited:
corjulo said:
What concerns me is the violation of privacy issues. OK, disability records are public. But, how soon before the patriot act is being used to compare prescription records or medical histories against medical? This is really scary. The potential for abuse or mistake is stunning

I know the FAA is only doing their job but still....
Click to expand...

I don't think the Patriot Act is required to do what they've done nor compare Rx record nor check medical histories. You permit the FAA to check those things and more (driving records) when you sign the application for the medical.

Len
 
corjulo said:
What concerns me is the violation of privacy issues. OK, disability records are public. But, how soon before the patriot act is being used to compare prescription records or medical histories against medical? This is really scary. The potential for abuse or mistake is stunning
Click to expand...
Y'all need to read the fine print on the Medical Certificate application more carefully. When you sign it, you give them permission to get into all your medical records if the need arises. They don't normally do that unless you've had an accident or something, but they can, and occasionally (when prompted by some attention-raising situation) do.

So there's no privacy violation here -- every one of those folks agreed in writing to let the FAA look at their records, and you have, too. READ BEFORE SIGNING, and if you don't like what you see, don't sign, but don't complain if they won't give you the privilege for which your signature was a requirement.
 
Ron Levy said:
Y'all need to read the fine print on the Medical Certificate application more carefully. When you sign it, you give them permission to get into all your medical records if the need arises. They don't normally do that unless you've had an accident or something, but they can, and occasionally (when prompted by some attention-raising situation) do.

So there's no privacy violation here -- every one of those folks agreed in writing to let the FAA look at their records, and you have, too. READ BEFORE SIGNING, and if you don't like what you see, don't sign, but don't complain if they won't give you the privilege for which your signature was a requirement.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. And I do understand that their may have been some major fraud taking place.
 
Last edited:
corjulo said:
...I do understand that their may have been some major fraud taking place.
Click to expand...

This is the part that bothers me. Given the choice of using a signed affidavit attesting to good health in order to charge the 40 people with disability fraud and recoup what was probably millions in fraudulently obtained disability payments, or using the disability claim affidavit to charge the 40 people with illegally obtaining a medical certificate, the government opts for yanking medicals rather than recovering the taxpayers' dollars.

What bozo is in charge of this organization?

Sheesh.
 
The thing you have to worry about is what image this puts in the public's mind. The TVnews story last night was full of dire warnings from their "aviation expert" about terrorsts lying to get licenses and twin engine airplanes packed with explosives.

The public would like nothing better than to get those noisy, annoying, "dangerous" little airplanes out of the sky, close up all of our airports and throw away the keys.
 
I can't tell you how many times I've heard bozo pilots of all ratings as well as new applicants profess confidently that "If I don't put a condition down on my written medical history for the FAA pilot's application, IT'S LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED !"

They apparently think doctors, pharmacists and psyhrinks don't keep any paper records and year after year I observe that they typically insist on persisting in this fraud, in spite of advice to write full disclosure of history and jump through the cumbersome FAA hoops in order to gain a solid and legal certificate.
 
Steve said:
These guys probably got to keep their driver's licenses.
Click to expand...
This doesn't help those who argue that self-certification is sufficient. Good thing this happened after the LS rules came in rather than before.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
This is the part that bothers me. Given the choice of using a signed affidavit attesting to good health in order to charge the 40 people with disability fraud and recoup what was probably millions in fraudulently obtained disability payments, or using the disability claim affidavit to charge the 40 people with illegally obtaining a medical certificate, the government opts for yanking medicals rather than recovering the taxpayers' dollars.

What bozo is in charge of this organization?

Sheesh.
Click to expand...

The investigation isn't over yet. If it were my investigation I would ground the pilots first in the interest of public safety and to extinguish the potential liability of culpability. After that I would be seeking redress for the taxpayers. Also, since they are all 'alleged' at this point I wouldn't be surprised if some are found innocent--or at least guilty of only a misdemeanor--but were caught up by an overzealous TSA looking to reestablish a positive reputation.

As a side note, it will be interesting to see ALPA's response.
 
The pilots, who include commercial and transport pilots, claimed to be medically fit to fly airplanes. However, they may have been flying with debilitating illnesses that should have kept them grounded, ranging from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder to drug and alcohol addiction and heart conditions, said Marlon Cobar, a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's office in Fresno.
...
When dozens of names turned up in both Social Security Administration and Federal Aviation Administration rolls, ''they realized there was probably criminal wrongdoing — either lying to the FAA or wrongfully receiving benefits,'' Cobar said.
The FAA immediately revoked 14 pilots' licenses and medical certificates, which are necessary to maintain a valid license, the U.S. attorney's office said. Others were referred for administrative revocation.
''We chose the most egregious,'' Cobar said Monday. ''You can't really fly a plane if you're telling the Social Security Administration you have a disabling back condition or bipolar disorder.''

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap07-19-113234.asp?t=apnew&vts=71920051142
Click to expand...

:dunno:
 
I know one of these guys, and if you are paranoid, you are justified. I'm writing to ask his permission to post some of the details. In the meantime, watch your backs.

Judy
 
good call on the edit Judy. I was just about to ask you about that.
 
NickDBrennan said:
good call on the edit Judy. I was just about to ask you about that.
Click to expand...


Nick,

I'm pretty sure he won't mind. On a private forum, he revealed a LOT more detail, including his medical condition. My post was pretty discrete. But I just want to make sure.

Judy
 
Richard said:
The investigation isn't over yet. If it were my investigation I would ground the pilots first in the interest of public safety and to extinguish the potential liability of culpability. After that I would be seeking redress for the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

The problem I see is this:

The government (FAA) yanks their medicals on the grounds that the pilots have flight disqualifying medical conditions. The Social Security Admin lawyer then goes after the pilots for fraudulently obtaining disability payments. Unfortunately for the SSA lawyer, by the governments own prior determination the medical condition is real (see FAA medical revocation).

I guess it will all come down to how cleanly the government handles the two separate actions. If the FAA yanks for failure to disclose medical visit(s) the SSA fraud claim is still intact. If the FAA yanks for medical condition the SAA claim is in a world of hurt. In the later case the defendant(s) lawyer will call the FAA official as a witness.

"Mr. X, didn't the FAA determine that my client is physically unfit to be a pilot?"

The newspaper accounts make it sound as if the FAA claimed medical conditions, not medical visits.
 
If you read the US Attorney's release on their website, it sounds like Homeland Security was behind this, and the USA/DHS pitch is "security".
 
Permission received. Here's what I started to say:

OK, slow down, guys. I know one of these 40 pilots, and the FAA has massively invaded his rights, not to mention yours and mine. I can only speak about this one pilot, but this guy did not even have a medical when he was temporarily on disability. After he got off disability, he got the medical. The FAA couldn't even get that straight. According to his lawyers, they did break the law to access his information. While the statement on the medical application does give them the right to see our medical information, what they do NOT have the right to do is use computer matching of records (that is, the records for applications for medicals and the records for SS disability). That is explicitly forbidden by a 1974 law.

So not only did this guy not fly around while he was on disability, the FAA broke the law to get their flawed information. Now, this guy did admit that he lied on his medical, but he also did so only after determining that, by the FAA's own rules regarding the condition he had, he was fit to fly. I won't go into why he lied, but he has taken full responsibility, and there are already established procedures for dealing with that, and the FAA has WAY exceeded those procedures by issuing him an emergency revocation, which explicitly covers situations in which the public's life is in immediate danger. Since the guy has a perfect flying record (>400 hours since he did get his medical) and is healthy under the FAA's own definitions, the emergency revocation was not warranted. (Shades of Bob Hoover.)

There may well be others on the list who were not, in fact, healthy enough to possess a medical, but using computer matching was not the way to find that out. To me, it says that the FAA does not trust its own medical certification procedures. If that's the case, it should change the procedures, not break the law to make up for its own carelessness.

Incidentally, I think the FAA will realize that they've gone after the wrong guy. He is extremely smart, persistent, organized, and detail-oriented, and he also has the resources to fight this. Not only do I have confidence he will win, there is even a possibility governmental heads will roll. Now wouldn't THAT be a nice thing!

Judy
 
Ed Guthrie said:
The problem I see is this:

The government (FAA) yanks their medicals on the grounds that the pilots have flight disqualifying medical conditions. The Social Security Admin lawyer then goes after the pilots for fraudulently obtaining disability payments. Unfortunately for the SSA lawyer, by the governments own prior determination the medical condition is real (see FAA medical revocation).

I guess it will all come down to how cleanly the government handles the two separate actions. If the FAA yanks for failure to disclose medical visit(s) the SSA fraud claim is still intact. If the FAA yanks for medical condition the SAA claim is in a world of hurt. In the later case the defendant(s) lawyer will call the FAA official as a witness.

"Mr. X, didn't the FAA determine that my client is physically unfit to be a pilot?"

The newspaper accounts make it sound as if the FAA claimed medical conditions, not medical visits.
Click to expand...

Ed, I'm not sure I follow you. What I understand you are saying either the FAA or the SSA may be the loser. But I think both will be winners.

2 permutations:

1)actual disability/valid claim
2)false disability/invalid claim

Granted, this is probably quite simplistic but in either case the FAA and the SSA will prevail Vs the pilots.

The FAA wins if 1), pilot in violation of 61.53, among others. The FAA wins if 2), pilot in violation 61.59. The SSA wins if 1), ability to function in normal duties is proof of invalid claim. The SSA wins if 2), claimant made fraudulent claim and claim is denied.

The govt investigation will winnow out the chaff (those small change claimants not worth pursuing or just inadvertenly caught up in the ruckus) then they will determine the charges, then they will make all efforts to make the charges stick.
 
Judy,

While I hear what you say, it all comes down to what the FAA/Govt decides to charge him with, and what the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism laws allow them to do. In Gov't minds, sometimes the ends justify the means. I don't subscribe to that, but a few others might, particularly in areas of law enforcement. The US Attorney is already positioning this as a Homeland Security case.

As an example, the original RICO statutes were written to chase mobsters. They are now used for everything under the sun, from Enron to simple wrongful termination cases where there is no mob involvement.

I agree that we should be afraid. The scary thing is that they will use this as a template for other cities and future cases. And if the gov't uses outside service providers to do the match (like that company that's selling law enforcement access to all databases), they may match it with any and all records from credit bureaus and elsewhere. If nothing else, DHS may trump this up as a reason to change the law to permit access to the MIB and other services (see, Mr/Ms Congresscritter, we fixed a major security threat as evidenced by this case, so give us access to more data).

I am not a lawyer. But I suspect that *if* the FAA just charged the fraud on the application and nothing else, and he did improperly fill out the application, that the FAA's charge will stick (regardless of how they found it) and no heads will roll.

Just my $0.02.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
Judy,

While I hear what you say, it all comes down to what the FAA/Govt decides to charge him with, and what the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism laws allow them to do. In Gov't minds, sometimes the ends justify the means. I don't subscribe to that, but a few others might, particularly in areas of law enforcement. The US Attorney is already positioning this as a Homeland Security case.

As an example, the original RICO statutes were written to chase mobsters. They are now used for everything under the sun, from Enron to simple wrongful termination cases where there is no mob involvement.

I agree that we should be afraid. The scary thing is that they will use this as a template for other cities and future cases. And if the gov't uses outside service providers to do the match (like that company that's selling law enforcement access to all databases), they may match it with any and all records from credit bureaus and elsewhere. If nothing else, DHS may trump this up as a reason to change the law to permit access to the MIB and other services (see, Mr/Ms Congresscritter, we fixed a major security threat as evidenced by this case, so give us access to more data).

I am not a lawyer. But I suspect that *if* the FAA just charged the fraud on the application and nothing else, and he did improperly fill out the application, that the FAA's charge will stick (regardless of how they found it) and no heads will roll.

Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, but as I understand it, the evidence the FAA would have to cite would be inadmissable because of the way it was collected. If they do charge him on just the lying part (which he admitted), the emergency revocation doesn't apply (don't forget, he was and is healthy under their own guidelines, so he wasn't covering up a disqualifying condition). In other words, they can't isolate one part of the situation from the other parts.

Now, if they simply charge him with lying and give him the same punishment as other pilots, then he'd probably accept that. But they can't punish him worse than other pilots because they would have to charge him with something more serious.

Of course, I really don't know all the details. I'll keep you posted if I learn more.

But you're right, the main point is, be afraid, be very afraid.

Judy
 
judypilot said:
I'm not a lawyer, and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, but as I understand it, the evidence the FAA would have to cite would be inadmissable because of the way it was collected. If they do charge him on just the lying part (which he admitted), the emergency revocation doesn't apply (don't forget, he was and is healthy under their own guidelines, so he wasn't covering up a disqualifying condition). In other words, they can't isolate one part of the situation from the other parts.

Now, if they simply charge him with lying and give him the same punishment as other pilots, then he'd probably accept that. But they can't punish him worse than other pilots because they would have to charge him with something more serious.

Of course, I really don't know all the details. I'll keep you posted if I learn more.

But you're right, the main point is, be afraid, be very afraid.

Judy
Click to expand...


Thanks Judy

Something about this case just doesn't smell right. One guy had a knee operation he failed to mention. Come on. Should the FAA demand an explanation. Yes, but should he be indicted by a grand jury. That should scare people.
 
Last edited:
judypilot said:
Permission received. Here's what I started to say:

OK, slow down, guys. I know one of these 40 pilots, and the FAA has massively invaded his rights, not to mention yours and mine. I can only speak about this one pilot, but this guy did not even have a medical when he was temporarily on disability. After he got off disability, he got the medical. The FAA couldn't even get that straight. According to his lawyers, they did break the law to access his information. While the statement on the medical application does give them the right to see our medical information, what they do NOT have the right to do is use computer matching of records (that is, the records for applications for medicals and the records for SS disability). That is explicitly forbidden by a 1974 law.

So not only did this guy not fly around while he was on disability, the FAA broke the law to get their flawed information. Now, this guy did admit that he lied on his medical, but he also did so only after determining that, by the FAA's own rules regarding the condition he had, he was fit to fly. I won't go into why he lied, but he has taken full responsibility, and there are already established procedures for dealing with that, and the FAA has WAY exceeded those procedures by issuing him an emergency revocation, which explicitly covers situations in which the public's life is in immediate danger. Since the guy has a perfect flying record (>400 hours since he did get his medical) and is healthy under the FAA's own definitions, the emergency revocation was not warranted. (Shades of Bob Hoover.)

There may well be others on the list who were not, in fact, healthy enough to possess a medical, but using computer matching was not the way to find that out. To me, it says that the FAA does not trust its own medical certification procedures. If that's the case, it should change the procedures, not break the law to make up for its own carelessness.

Incidentally, I think the FAA will realize that they've gone after the wrong guy. He is extremely smart, persistent, organized, and detail-oriented, and he also has the resources to fight this. Not only do I have confidence he will win, there is even a possibility governmental heads will roll. Now wouldn't THAT be a nice thing!

Judy
Click to expand...

Judy,

Without blowing cover,
is it possible to clarify why this individual lied on the medical ?
 
judypilot said:
I'm not a lawyer, and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, but as I understand it, the evidence the FAA would have to cite would be inadmissable because of the way it was collected. If they do charge him on just the lying part (which he admitted), the emergency revocation doesn't apply (don't forget, he was and is healthy under their own guidelines, so he wasn't covering up a disqualifying condition). In other words, they can't isolate one part of the situation from the other parts.

Now, if they simply charge him with lying and give him the same punishment as other pilots, then he'd probably accept that. But they can't punish him worse than other pilots because they would have to charge him with something more serious.

Of course, I really don't know all the details. I'll keep you posted if I learn more.

But you're right, the main point is, be afraid, be very afraid.

Judy
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great post Judy. I agree with you that when I first started reading and hearing the press I had that feeling something did not smell right. Having worked for the government most of my adult life (military) and other I just don't trust them to do the honorable thing. Bob Hover is a prime reminder of high handed work. To many folks today go along with anything the government says in the name of national security. So again I appreciate your standing up and stating facts as you know them. Hope to meet you someday.

sere
 
Richard said:
Ed, I'm not sure I follow you. What I understand you are saying either the FAA or the SSA may be the loser. But I think both will be winners.

2 permutations:

1)actual disability/valid claim
2)false disability/invalid claim

Granted, this is probably quite simplistic but in either case the FAA and the SSA will prevail Vs the pilots.

The FAA wins if 1), pilot in violation of 61.53, among others. The FAA wins if 2), pilot in violation 61.59. The SSA wins if 1), ability to function in normal duties is proof of invalid claim. The SSA wins if 2), claimant made fraudulent claim and claim is denied.
Click to expand...

Okay, first let's make sure we are both talking the same problem. I am concerned about the government in its infinite ineptitude ****ing away a valid case of fradulent disability claim. If that is what we are discussing, then a finding of 61.53 violation (operation while medically deficient) would confirm the plantiff's claim that s/he was indeed suffering a valid medical deficiency. According to the newspaper reports, this claim (61.53, medical deficiency) is indeed the government's basis for busting these folks. I would prefer that the goverment push a 61.59 claim (falsification, the pilots omitted doctor's visits) so that the SSA could then claim fraudulent disability claim using the pilots' own affidavits (the pilots told the FAA they were healthy when applying for that medical).

The govt investigation will winnow out the chaff (those small change claimants not worth pursuing or just inadvertenly caught up in the ruckus) then they will determine the charges, then they will make all efforts to make the charges stick.
Click to expand...

Which charges. As noted above the goverment appears to be pursuing the 61.53 charges which will seriously dump the SSA fraud charges in the toilet.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Okay, first let's make sure we are both talking the same problem. I am concerned about the government in its infinite ineptitude ****ing away a valid case of fradulent disability claim. If that is what we are discussing, then a finding of 61.53 violation (operation while medically deficient) would confirm the plantiff's claim that s/he was indeed suffering a valid medical deficiency. According to the newspaper reports, this claim (61.53, medical deficiency) is indeed the government's basis for busting these folks. I would prefer that the goverment push a 61.59 claim (falsification, the pilots omitted doctor's visits) so that the SSA could then claim fraudulent disability claim using the pilots' own affidavits (the pilots told the FAA they were healthy when applying for that medical).
Click to expand...

OK, I think we're talking about the same thing. Why should they (61.53 and 61.59) be mutually exclusive? In my mind the evidence presented so far makes a good case for BOTH violations. Find out who is really guilty and then pin them to the wall.

However, I would consider the 61.59 violation to be more of a 'gold mine'. It would seem a charge of fraud would be much more airtight than proving a medical deficiency.



An aside: I completely agree with what LarryB posted. While I cannot say I agonized over it I did give some serious consideration to what may happen if I wasn't completly accurate on the FAA form (FAA # ?) for the AME. Even though there were some long months of frustration (during which it was disputed I should ever be elgible for a pilot's cert) that is all behind me now and I have a clear conscience. Honesty really is the best policy.
 
I've been thinking about this ever since this story broke but didn't know exactly how to tie it into the current discussion. I think Ed provided me the door...


RICO and felony making false claims. So the feds come to investigate. In the course of the investigation it is found someone made a fraudulent statement, either verbal or written, to a federal employee. A favorite tactic of recent has been to prosecute for the lie. That's a federal felony. As iffy as that sounds it is a tactic which succeeds in shortening the case and getting the guilty party.

However, in at least one local case, it was shown that the feds actually engaged in entrapment in order to snare the suspect. A smart lawyer for the defense beat that rap. All charges dropped save for inadvertant ignorance which is evidently a misdemeanor. Perhaps the tactic isn't so successful now that a winnable defense strategy has been identified.

So, in the case of the San Francisco 40 perhaps the investigation will initially focus on 61.53 and having prevailed move on to Act II which is 61.59. Isn't one who has been already found guilty on one charge much more ready to cooperate on any additional charges? I'm not talking of the detestable plea bargaining but one of going for the easy mark first and then going for the kill once he's in your sights.

But what do I know?
 
Ed Guthrie said:
**snip** If that is what we are discussing, then a finding of 61.53 violation (operation while medically deficient) would confirm the plantiff's claim that s/he was indeed suffering a valid medical deficiency. **snip**
Click to expand...

Which he wasn't. Probably many/most of the others were, but not this guy.

I do not want to reveal his condition, so I guess I'm just going to quietly suffer on his behalf the slings and arrows you're tossing his way.

However, I think most or even all of you are missing my main point. Whether RICO was defined narrowly at first isn't the issue--it was expanded legally. What is NOT legal is using computer records in the way the FAA did. The guy knows he should be punished for lying, and he has freely taken responsibility and accepted that. What he's fighting is the fact that, not only did the FAA break the law by using computer matching, they didn't even get their facts straight in his case. He never was on disability and had a medical at the same time. Even if his name came up, it shouldn't have gone any further because the dates didn't match. There's another point, too, about this, but since I won't reveal the nature of his condition, I can't make it.

Let me take this one step further. I don't have anything to hide, either. I've been scrupulously honest. Do I care if the government is misusing records? You bet! Why should I, since I have nothing to hide? Because it's wrong.

Judy
 
Not being an expert in either field I have a question - are ALL disability claims disqualifying when it comes to a flight medical? What about carpal tunnel syndrome? I may have a disability claim for loss of hearing or loss of a limb but I know there are deaf pilots as well as amputees flying.

I'm confused over whether it was the existence of any disability claim or did they vet them for potentially disqualifying conditions?
 
More info and an update

The following is from a lawyer on the other forum, used with his permission:

"According to his chronology of events, his main (and it seems, only) mistake was failing to disclose that he had this condition when he applied for a 3rd Class medical certificate.

"Presumably that is what caused the FAA/DOT to revoke his pilot certificate, and what triggered criminal charges under 18 USC 1001 (making false statements to a Federal agency) and/or 18 USC 1018 (falsifying an official certificate).

"Even though he may have met the FAA's special criteria for issuing medical certificates to people with his condition, the fact that he did not disclose his condition when he applied for a medical certificate is what apparently triggered this prosecution.

"Violation of 18 USC 1001 is a felony under Federal law (punishable by more than one year in prison). However, 18 USC 1018 is a misdemeanor--a lesser crime--punishable by one year or less in prison. What often happens in such cases is that the U.S. Attorney's Office files charges under both sections of the Criminal Code, and then agrees to drop the felony charges in return for a guilty plea to the lesser misdemeanor charge. Under a plea bargain in such cases, the government might agree to a sentence of probation only (no prison time) in exchange for the permanent revocation of the defendant's pilot's license. It's often a Hobson's Choice, or a choice of the lesser of two evils.

"What strategy he adopts in this case will, of course, be up to him and his attorneys. For example, if they can show that the information the government used to develop its case was obtained unlawfully (e.g., violation of the Privacy Act), then they may be successful in quashing the evidence and defeating the prosecution."

In fact, what this lawyer speculated would happen did happen--the government offered to drop the felony charge if he would plead guilty to the lesser charge AND (and here's the kicker) if he would agree not to move to suppress the government's evidence. If that's not CYA, I don't know what is.

Because how they obtained the information is how they broke the law, he's refusing to take the deal.

Judy
 
Last edited:
I am also informed regarding the specifics of the individual's case to which Judy refers. To those of you who seem to be placing a hefty dose of blame his way, please hold your judgement until such time as you are fully informed regarding the details of his case. Just many of you are dismayed by inaccurate reporting of aviation issues by the press, this case (as stated by the prosecutor's press release) seems to have flaws of equal magnitude and of much greater consequence as calling a 737 a Piper Cub.

Indeed, if the prosecutors consider his case one of the most egregious among the 40, this whole case may fall apart in a matter of weeks or months. If his lawyers are correct, the government stepped way over the line. If his lawyers aren't correct, the government still stepped way over the line, and the law needs to be changed to reflect that. Yes, he made a mistake, and admits to what he has done wrong, but I would venture to guess that literally thousands of pilots actively flying today have made the mistake he made, and that mistake does not nearly rise to the level of "public stoning" he is likely going to endure.

Jeff
 
judypilot said:
...this guy did not even have a medical when he was temporarily on disability. After he got off disability, he got the medical.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to the legal issue of computer matching versus accessing, but I can speak to the application matter. Read it carefully -- you are required to list every single hospital admission in your whole life and any case of one of the many listed conditions on your first one (including item 18x "Other illness, disability, or surgery" [emphasis added]), and then any changes/additions on subsequent applications. If you don't, you signed a false document, and if they can show you did so knowingly (and it's hard to imagine anyone not knowing they were on disability), you've committed a criminal act, and they have your authorization to look into your records to confirm your statements. In case you've forgotten any of that, try http://www.leftseat.com/pdffiles/8500-8new.pdf which includes the form and the instructions and disclosures, especially the little NOTICE in the lower left corner of the front side.

Regardless of the legality of the government's search for information, it appears on the face of things that the 40 people concerned didn't read and heed what the instructions and form said. Even if the government failed to abide by the constitutional search protections and loses the criminal cases, the administrative rules are very different and much laxer, and these folks are not likely to keep their medicals even if they avoid criminal convictions.

Bottom line here is that when filling out the medical application, you are begging for big trouble if you conceal or even just don't reveal any condition they ask about. Should you be afraid? Only if you don't tell the full truth on documents you sign certifying that they are "complete and true to the best of [your] knowledge."
 
Last edited:
Okay, one more time, and then I'll give up. The point is NOT that they yanked his medical. Yes, he lied. Yes, he should be punished. Yes, maybe he should even have his flying privileges revoked forever. He is not disputing that.

What you should be afraid of is that the government is willing to break its own laws to find out if you've been misbehaving and then wants your complicity in covering up their own lawbreaking. THAT'S the point. Perhaps you agree that the government should be able to do ignore laws and do whatever it takes to come after you. In that case, you are a big supporter of the Patriot Act, among others. That's the point we should be arguing.

Judy
 
''You can't really fly a plane if you're telling the Social Security Administration you have a disabling back condition.."

Not an AME by a long shot, but it sure seems to me that someone could have a "disabling back condition" that would prevent employment in one's profession yet still qualify for at least a 3rd class medical. Of course you would have to list the condition or at least any diagnosis/treatment of your condition during the exam. The other stuff like bipolar disorder sounds pretty disqualifying though.
 
judypilot said:
Okay, one more time, and then I'll give up. The point is NOT that they yanked his medical. Yes, he lied. Yes, he should be punished. Yes, maybe he should even have his flying privileges revoked forever. He is not disputing that.

What you should be afraid of is that the government is willing to break its own laws to find out if you've been misbehaving and then wants your complicity in covering up their own lawbreaking. THAT'S the point. Perhaps you agree that the government should be able to do ignore laws and do whatever it takes to come after you. In that case, you are a big supporter of the Patriot Act, among others. That's the point we should be arguing.

Judy
Click to expand...

I understand you point and agree completely. Although I'm pretty much a political conservative, it really scares me how far our elected (and appointed) government has come towards the police state mentality. And as expected it's gotten a lot worse since 9/11 precipitated several knee jerk reactions like the Patriot act (talk about spin, what a misnomer that one). I've read of cases where the RICO act was used to persecute relatively or even completely innocent parties with the municipalities involved gleefully raking in a bunch of money and falsely calling it justice. Locally, we've had a number of cases where the local gestapo terrorized innocent families and seriously destroyed private property on "no-knock" warrants (I'm talking bulldozers through the walls of a home) acting on radically incorrect information provided by dubious sources and/or errors in identifying/confirming the correct address.

And it appears that as long as "it doesn't happen to them", most citizens today find all of this an acceptable side effect of "improved security".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top