Yup. It's one of those things that isn't particularly dangerous—I've been above, on, and below the bridges (they are twins) in question, they are 15 minutes away—but clearly against the regulations. But still, there is plenty of room. She's had a strike or two against her already, with the Cub-on-the-loose thing, etc. I'm not sure one of us would get the same punishment, but I'm not gonna find out. Cameras are everywhere, and most people who'd do that would likely tell someone.
Honest, unless the FAA police are out watching, she is still "capable" of flying outlaw farmer style. It's beyond incredible we seriously put the piece of paper before the actual human ability. She didn't cause any actual harm to anyone and the only degradation to her pilot skills will be from the FAA's enforcement action.
That is the reality of our world.
Lol. Why?
No, rules should reflect reality - like if someone got their wallet stolen, or forgotten at home for instance, the lack of a piece of paper shouldn't keep them from using their property, and punishment should be equivalent and tied to the actual "crime."
Funny thing is, let's say for sake of argument Martha posted a pic of her bridge under flight, and posted "WooHoo! Look at me!" and the FAA never acted.
We would then see replies of "See! She was a former FAA manager and they are looking the other way! So unfair!"
I'm NOT saying she "should' - but saying that she "could" and there's little that anyone could do about it. Pack her bags, get in her car, and go somewhere where the skies are friendlier...
Stop mis-reading me. This kind of conflation is what makes me distrust the FAA. I'm saying that there's little the FAA could actually do to stop her if she WAS a danger to the public, which I find a disturbing conclusion. If the danger to the public was real, you'd need to actually lock her up, to keep her from going out and grabbing a plane and killing someone. If you don't need to lock her up, then this action is excessive.So break more rules in defiance of being caught breaking rules.
Got it.
I'll answer that if you answer this:
I double, nope, triple dog dare you.
So risking prison time only affects those who actually care, if she knew she had terminal cancer, how's that really a threat? That threat wouldn't stop a suicidal individual, either. I'd argue that the punishment does nothing to stop real criminals and is excessive for those who would actually regard the law. If it took a year for this suspension, she could probably get away with it elsewhere for what, six months at least if she was careful? How much does that put the public at risk? Be honest.
Just so I’m not misreading you...is revocation the equivalent of removing all freedoms, or revocation should also be accompanied by removing all freedoms?
