Enforcement Action on N-number?

Mtns2SkiesBetterHalf

Mtns2SkiesBetterHalf

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
31
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2SkiesBetterHalf
I'm looking at the aircraft registration CD for a plane I might buy and noticed something I hadn't seen before. It is a "Termination of Enforcement Action" letter assigned to that tail number.

The letter seems to indicate that the enforcement action could be against the aircraft or the owner but doesn't specify which or what it was. There's nothing else in the registration files about it.

Anybody seen this before?

EnforcementAction-Airworthiness.png
 
Mtns2SkiesBetterHalf said:
Anybody seen this before?
Click to expand...
Never seen a termination letter but have seen a few older Notice of Proposed Certificate Action which would preceed the termination letter. And if it was in the registry records, 10-1 the owner violated a Part 47 rule and the aircraft registration was probably on the verge of being revoked until that termination letter showed up.
 
Considering the document was generated by a typewriter, I'd say it is of no consequence regarding purchase of the aircraft.
 
3393RP said:
Considering the document was generated by a typewriter, I'd say it is of no consequence regarding purchase of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Same since it was put out by the Aeronautical Center Counsel. Definitely a piece of history.
 
Bell206 said:
Never seen a termination letter but have seen a few older Notice of Proposed Certificate Action which would preceed the termination letter. And if it was in the registry records, 10-1 the owner violated a Part 47 rule and the aircraft registration was probably on the verge of being revoked until that termination letter showed up.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. And a propos the title of the thread, yeah we're probably talking about action against the registration certificate, not a pilot certificate.
 
Now what did your Mooney do?
 
asicer said:
Perhaps the federal crime was smuggling diamonds and now there's a weird rattle whenever you shake the right wing. That could be good luck.
Click to expand...
As long as no hole opens up
Maybe W&B calculation doesn’t measure up, too heavy
 
asicer said:
Perhaps the federal crime was smuggling diamonds and now there's a weird rattle whenever you shake the right wing. That could be good luck.
Click to expand...
Could be. Drug smuggling usually leaves no much to auction. OTOH, the crime might not have much to do with the airplane.
 
WDD said:
Now what did your Mooney do?
Click to expand...
From what I could tell in the history, it was sent from dealership to dealership when it was new. At some point, it was taken to court by 'Murica, and then seized by San Diego customs and used from 1982 to 1986 where it was donated to Kansas Tech Institute. After that, Continental bought it for a little bit.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-09-14 at 6.50.40 AM.png
    Screenshot 2023-09-14 at 6.50.40 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 26
I found a similar letter in the files for a BO209. They had sent a certified letter to all owners about an emergency AD (only 11 in the US) to the owner who hadn't updated his address and it got returned.

Once the owner updated his address the FAA released the hostage (airplane).
 
midlifeflyer said:
Had the bad luck to be owned by persons charged with a federal crime.
Click to expand...
Or just suspected of a crime. It’s civil forfeiture - the most shameful thing about our judicial system.

Suppose a law enforcement dude wants a nice asset, let’s say a nice classic car, well, he just needs a preponderance of evidence that it was involved in a crime, which doesn’t require that he actually charge someone with a crime. Clearing that minor hurdle, the police dude just seizes the asset, and then his agency gains ownership of it by suing the asset itself, in a case called, let’s say, United States v. 1957 Chevy convertible. Or United States v. 1979 Mooney. The asset cannot defend itself, so the police dude gets the nice Chevy. Or Mooney.
 
NoHeat said:
Or just suspected of a crime. It’s civil forfeiture - the most shameful thing about our judicial system.

Suppose a law enforcement dude wants a nice asset, let’s say a nice classic car, well, he just needs a preponderance of evidence that it was involved in a crime, which doesn’t require that he actually charge someone with a crime. Clearing that minor hurdle, the police dude just seizes the asset, and then his agency gains ownership of it by suing the asset itself, in a case called, let’s say, United States v. 1957 Chevy convertible. Or United States v. 1979 Mooney. The asset cannot defend itself, so the police dude gets the nice Chevy. Or Mooney.
Click to expand...
The owner or a party with an interest in the asset (usually a bank with a security interest - BTDT) can defend its confiscation There have been a few cases where a forfeiture was reversed as disproportionate to the offense, but theft by court order remains a significant problem.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The owner or a party with an interest in the asset (usually a bank with a security interest - BTDT) can defend its confiscation There have been a few cases where a forfeiture was reversed as disproportionate to the offense, but theft by court order remains a significant problem.
Click to expand...

As I recall there are tight and specific time windows where the owner of the "criminal asset" needs to file form X by date Y or lose item Z forever -- the game is rigged, and if you need 10 grand in lawyerpower to play it... well... free ish for the cops is the harvest, and the under-moneyed or under-educated in our society get trampled. :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top