Crash:unlicensed pilot, uninspected plane

[ScottM]

This is probably the pilot version of the 'stupid' thread we got going.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=b4831587-6e57-4d08-bfd2-820d3f49baa5&

What an idiot!!

This is the type of stuff that makes us look like a bunch of cowboys that need reigning in.

 

[NC Pilot]

Re: Crash:unlicensed pilot, unispected plane

This is probably the pilot version of the 'stupid' thread we got going.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=b4831587-6e57-4d08-bfd2-820d3f49baa5&

What an idiot!!

This is the type of stuff that makes us look like a bunch of cowboys that need reigning in.

Not saying he can't fly without a license (he can, but he may not), or that he can't fly without the plane being worked on by an A&P (it can, but it may not), but without fuel neither is going to get very far.

Idiot. You are right, it makes all of us look bad.

 

[Anthony]

Re: Crash:unlicensed pilot, unispected plane

This is the type of stuff that makes us look like a bunch of cowboys that need reigning in.

Have you seen the credit card commercial, you know the "What's in your wallet?" one that has the Cessna flying the family because they were blacked out? THey make it look crazy that anyone would fly in a small plane and the pilot is a lunatic/redneck. The yoke even comes off in his hands.

Moron advertising companies.

 

[Eamon]

Re: Crash:unlicensed pilot, unispected plane

If he had only poured one more 5 gallon can of auto fuel, he would still be flying today

Bubba, Hold my beer while I fuel the plane!

 

[wbarnhill]

According to local reports, it doesn't appear local law enforcement will pursue criminal charges against Schultz. Sheriff's spokeswoman Teri Barbera told the Palm Beach Post, "We handle it on a rescue level. Once they (federal investigators) come on scene, they take jurisdiction."
It's unclear at this point what action, if any, the FAA will take.
FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen told the Post, "There is no criminal investigation whatsoever. We do not enforce criminal (violations). We do violations of air safety regulations: letters of warning up to fines to suspensions of a pilot certificate."

So... maybe someone at the FAA should get together with someone at the Sheriff's department and get this whole jurisdiction thing sorted out so this guy can be dissuaded from doing this crap again?

He had the money for the Super Viking, so the fine probably won't be too much skin off his back. He had minor injuries, so he's not really been given a jolt to say "Hey this isn't a good idea". And his cert is already gone, so suspension probably means nothing either. Sounds like Mr. Schultz will be back in the air in a few months (after procuring a new aircraft).

 

[Lance F]

I read this too. My first thought is that this goes on WAY more than we think. Most of us who inhabit these boards are choirboys compared to the real world. Let's face it we're pretty much on the honor system as far as currency, medicals, aircraft inspections, FIKI and such. It's only an issure when something goes wrong. Maybe there should be more ramp checks, BUT it should only be major shortcomings that result in violations from such ramp checks. Then the overall aviation community would support it. I for one would be very happy if there were a system in place that could have caught the good Mr. Schultz much sooner.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

on the vike chat weve been wondering what the lawsuits might cost him, you know there's no insurance!

 

[skyflyer8]

Stories like this bother me like crazy. Maybe because of what it does to the overall image of flying, when "the rest of us" put so much effort into doing things right.

Locally I can think of two certificate-related cases that make me cringe. What can we do about the bad apples who don't care whether they have a certificate?

One case is where a private pilot managed to set up a legitimate-looking flight school and illegally give many hours of flight instruction to unsuspecting customers. Eventually he was booted off the airport, sued, etc., but not before making plans to continue this "instruction" in another state.

The second case involves a non-pilot who bought a full-fledged airplane (not an ultralight) and decided he would teach himself to fly it. No instructor, no student pilot certificate, no regard for the rules. Imagine the FAA examiner's expression when the guy showed up for a checkride without a single hour of dual in his logbook! No kidding!

I'm curious to know how many people like the Viking pilot in the article are lurking out there. Can we ever know? Has anyone tried to tackle this issue? I'd be interested in reading any articles on the subject.

All I can say is, "See and avoid."

 

[Fast n' Furious]

I strongly support aviation vigilanteeism. Fly a plane out of annual....we chainsaw it into little pieces. No license? No problem...they never found Hoffa either. Straight in pattern entry? They find you missing a kidney while taking an ice bath at the local Days Inn. Dare to utter...."any traffic in the area please advise?"....it's just too horrible to imagine. As long as people can get over they will. Sometimes it fun to watch it all fall apart....sometimes it ain't.

 

[poadeleted20]

So... maybe someone at the FAA should get together with someone at the Sheriff's department and get this whole jurisdiction thing sorted out so this guy can be dissuaded from doing this crap again?

The jurisdiction for an act like this is quite clear -- it belongs to the Federal Government, and the agency that covers it is the Department of Justice, specifically, the local US Attorney. The relevent section of the law is 49 USC 46316. The person flying without a license "shall be fined under title 18. A separate violation occurs for each day the violation continues." In addition, the US Attorney can get a civil commitement order jailing a person who continues to fly without a license after being fined until that person can convince a judge s/he won't do it again. That said, I've never heard of this happening.

 

[bbchien]

I strongly support aviation vigilanteeism. Fly a plane out of annual....we chainsaw it into little pieces. No license? No problem...they never found Hoffa either. Straight in pattern entry? They find you missing a kidney while taking an ice bath at the local Days Inn. Dare to utter...."any traffic in the area please advise?"....it's just too horrible to imagine. As long as people can get over they will. Sometimes it fun to watch it all fall apart....sometimes it ain't.

As I repetitively post in the medical sections here, and on the "red" board, it's not about your ability to fly, it's about your ability to be insured to fly.

We just had an 8,500 hour pilot hand prop a 414 and it got away, destroying a peoria hangar door, taking his wife (not a rated pilot) on the ride of her life, rupturing the right wing tank and trashing the right engine/propellor and mounts. Even legal pilots do really really stupid boner stuff. The aircraft is totalled (it's a company a/c, he's the "professional" pilot).

Like Marty Mayes says, your "update resume" light is on.

We have five scofflaws here at PIA, which is not really my business. The FSDO has advised me (without names) that they have to see them fly to do anything... Sigh.

 

[wsuffa]

The jurisdiction for an act like this is quite clear -- it belongs to the Federal Government, and the agency that covers it is the Department of Justice, specifically, the local US Attorney. The relevent section of the law is 49 USC 46316. The person flying without a license "shall be fined under title 18. A separate violation occurs for each day the violation continues." In addition, the US Attorney can get a civil commitement order jailing a person who continues to fly without a license after being fined until that person can convince a judge s/he won't do it again. That said, I've never heard of this happening.

ROn is correct... the same thing applies with the FCC and unlicensed radio stations/radio operators. The agency can only "warn" the violaters and issue civil fines: actual enforcement (and enforcement of a fine) falls on the local US Attorney.

It is rare - but it does happen - that the DOJ actually takes legal action... and usually for recalcitrant repeat offenders or when public safety is compromised. Two cases come to mind: one where an repeat unlicensed radio station (pirate station) was operating as a broadcaster on 108.1 MHz on Long Island (whacked out the ISP ILS); the other where another pirate radio station operator was making threats against the President on the air. Both earned the interest of the DOJ, a search warrant, and a subsequent visit by Federal Marshals.

I suspect that it would take a pretty substantial issue (like an unlicensed pilot operating an ulnicensed multi-seat charter or carrying drugs) to get DOJ attention. Single pilot, self-owned airplane, no other laws broken? They have bigger fish to fry.

 

[wsuffa]

We have five scofflaws here at PIA, which is not really my business. The FSDO has advised me (without names) that they have to see them fly to do anything... Sigh.

Bruce, it becomes our business when it affects our ability to fly, or leads to new regulations.

I put bad publicity in that category.

Assuming the news reports are correct, this crash never should have happened: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121500663.html

DAGSBORO, Del. -- A real estate developer with a small stake in the Washington Capitals and a pilot were killed when their helicopter crashed in a soybean field shortly after taking off in fog, authorities said.

Other news reports stated that neither the helicopter nor the pilot were rated for IFR.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Maybe I just didn't know about it before, but I am finding more guys are flying without insurance. A good friend who is a real craftsman, built an RV-6 across from me (hanger across the taxiway). We've chatted over the years with him and he recently told me he would like to sell it and would like me to have it.

One thing led to another and I checked on insurance. The most coverage I could get through a company like AIG was $100,000 per seat and 1,000,000 total liability. Hull value is mid $80s. I asked about his current coverage and his passenger is not covered (two seater), $1,000,000 total liability and same hull. So, as one ages, the insurance doesn't seem to stop, but they start eliminating coverage.

I posed this to him and he said, oh yea, I had forgotten, I don't have passenger coverage and I'm worried about passing my next medical: that's why I'd like to sell the plane. (He would like to still fly it on an hourly rate if he keeps his medical.) He added, a lot of my friends have quit getting insurance coverage because they are denying coverage we want and it's getting so expensive!

So, the position I get into if I want to help him (and I do feel real close to him), is if he flies and hurts a passenger, no coverage and I'm the plane owner (really can't do that.)

Even if I purchase it and he doesn't fly it; if a passenger was hurt and needed long term medical treatment, the $100,000 coverage wouldn't go far. The insurance agent actually made a statement with words to the effect of: If you have substantial assets, you really shouldn't be flying a plane yourself!!

Best,

Dave

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The second case involves a non-pilot who bought a full-fledged airplane (not an ultralight) and decided he would teach himself to fly it. No instructor, no student pilot certificate, no regard for the rules. Imagine the FAA examiner's expression when the guy showed up for a checkride without a single hour of dual in his logbook! No kidding!

He actually scheduled a checkride? I mean, if he had gone to the lengths necessary to understand what would be required on the checkride (PTS) and learned all the gizmos and gadgets in the plane, you'd think he would have known that he'd have to have 40 TT + 20 dual, and some endorsements to solo.

Wow.

 

[gismo]

We have five scofflaws here at PIA, which is not really my business. The FSDO has advised me (without names) that they have to see them fly to do anything... Sigh.

I'd think that video recordings of the illicit behavior would be sufficient for the FSDO to take action, especially if there were witnesses that would be willing to give statements supporting the video.

 

[infotango]

Civil penalties from your friends at the FAA are not at all rare. Usually they are against hazmat shippers and poorly behaved passengers, but they are frequently used against pilots who don't have certificates, and in cases where the licences suspension is not adequate. Civil penalties can also be used against airlines who violate safety rules from the FAA, and business practice rules from the DOT. There are all sorts of ways to enforce a civil penalty.
There is a threshold amount where the case goes to Federal court and the DOJ becomes involved, but I've forgotten what the amount is.
Unfortunately there are a lot of unauthorized operations which take place in aviation; mostly shady illegal 135 operators, you may have some at your own airport. The cases Bruce describes seem pretty pretty harmless compared to some of the more serious cases, such as the Teterboro crash.

The thing that scares me about the crashes is when the local governments become involved, and bring criminal charges against the operators of an aircraft. In most of the rest of the world aviation accidents are criminalized, which I think is a dreadful idea.
While the cases of criminalization in the US so far have been egregious, I really think that involving the local governments in aviation law is a horrible idea for aviation. It isn't too difficult to imagine the slippery slope argument....when will state governments start bringing criminal charges against noise abatement violators?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

on the vike chat weve been wondering what the lawsuits might cost him, you know there's no insurance!

What's with the Bellancas this week Dave? Did you see the other thread about the pilot who crashed one yesterday, killing all his pax, and was arrested for manslaughter today?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

What's with the Bellancas this week Dave? Did you see the other thread about the pilot who crashed one yesterday, killing all his pax, and was arrested for manslaughter today?

Beats me Kent, all the owners I have met at fly-ins or on the chat have been fairly serious, careful pilots....save one or two.
Sometimes I do wonder about the Vike being one of the lowest costs ways into the 'performer' marketplace attracting lower quality pilots but no data on that, just an unfounded supposition.