Martha Lunken has privileges revoked

Doc Holliday said:
I think you are relying way too much on the article. Like I said earlier, much more happened than what was written that led up to the revocation.
Click to expand...

I missed it. What else happened?
 
I bet she is a 99.

Good or bad, she was PIC and enjoyed the flight.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Violations that GENIUNELY endanger the community, sure. Stupid stuff like busting the guy in the Nanchang for having smoke on a low pass over the runway, when a go-around would have been perfectly legal probably don't deserve it just like a guy doesn't deserve to die over a $20 bill. The force used should be corollary to the actual harm.
Click to expand...

Ok, now you’re onto another topic. We’re not discussing the airshow someone brought up.

But your first sentence sums it up. Her actions could be viewed as public endangerment.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Ok, now you’re onto another topic. We’re not discussing the airshow someone brought up.

But your first sentence sums it up. Her actions could be viewed as public endangerment.
Click to expand...
And again, if so, the "good faith" might take a year to take your ticket seems weird. If she's really a threat, that's waaaay too slow. If it was a one-time joyride by an old woman who has the skills to do it safely and she checked her box off, then the revocation is probably too big of a hammer, unless a lot more is involved, in which case, actually take it to a jury.
 
I Martha did not fly under a bridge then she should fight the FAA on this tooth and nail.

If she did in fact fly under a bridge, and I suspect she did, then she should take her medicine like a big girl.

You can tap dance like a teenager with your whataboutism all you want, but flying under a bridge is the very definition of careless and reckless. Don't say 'well, it wouldn't have hurt the bridge'. How about the guy fishing off the bridge?

Think about the anti-airport groups who can point to this kind of stupid tricks to prove these bug smashers are dangerous rich people toys that should be banned and the GA airports closed.

She was close to the FAA it sounds like for most of her adult life. If she wanted to fly under a bridge she should have applied for a waiver, the way the pilots who flew under the bridge did in the movie 'second hand lions'.
 
JimNtexas said:
I Martha did not fly under a bridge then she should fight the FAA on this tooth and nail.

If she did in fact fly under a bridge, and I suspect she did, then she should take her medicine like a big girl.

You can tap dance like a teenager with your whataboutism all you want, but flying under a bridge is the very definition of careless and reckless. Don't say 'well, it wouldn't have hurt the bridge'. How about the guy fishing off the bridge?

Think about the anti-airport groups who can point to this kind of stupid tricks to prove these bug smashers are dangerous rich people toys that should be banned and the GA airports closed.

She was close to the FAA it sounds like for most of her adult life. If she wanted to fly under a bridge she should have applied for a waiver, the way the pilots who flew under the bridge did in the movie 'second hand lions'.
Click to expand...
I agree, which is why it taking a year for the suspension to come down is actually, well... slow, but if nothing else bad happened over that year, the the totality of the punishment is also too much.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I agree, which is why it taking a year for the suspension to come down is actually, well... slow, but if nothing else bad happened over that year, the the totality of the punishment is also too much.
Click to expand...

Would you have liked it better if the FAA just bypassed their process and immediately revoked her certificate?
 
Everskyward said:
But this isn't 1828. She wouldn't have been flying under bridges in 1828. :D

Besides, I'm sure she had the chance to tell her side. The story above seems incomplete. She couldn't have gone from letter of investigation to revocation without having the opportunity to make her case, unless she blew off all notices asking her to respond.
Click to expand...

She put a crucifix in her mailbox. Weird stuff.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Like other agencies have to do? Present evidence, get a warrant, etc... ?
Click to expand...

iu
 
RyanShort1 said:
Why is that such a bad thing? If she was gonna be a serial bridge fly-through person, wouldn't that really be better? If not, and there's really no rush, then what extreme danger is there to go for a full suspension?
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand any of this.
 
Doc Holliday said:
You clearly do not understand any of this.
Click to expand...
That's not a good assumption. I understand that it's a different kind of law, admiralty law, law of the sea, stuff dating back to the railroads and the like. I'm arguing that it is more theater than value when a person deemed enough of a threat to go to a full suspension can exercise privileges (possibly safely?) for nearly a year before being hit with a sledgehammer for not respecting your authority, which is what it boils down to. I agree that it's probably over far more than just the bridge episode...
 
I'm sure she has plenty of friends, she can be a 'passenger' in her plane, right? She hasn't been exiled from the sky. Might be a good time to share some hours with a new pilot, all legit, legal PIC, pro-rata share and all that.
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's not a good assumption. I understand that it's a different kind of law, admiralty law, law of the sea, stuff dating back to the railroads and the like. I'm arguing that it is more theater than value when a person deemed enough of a threat to go to a full suspension can exercise privileges (possibly safely?) for nearly a year before being hit with a sledgehammer for not respecting your authority, which is what it boils down to. I agree that it's probably over far more than just the bridge episode...
Click to expand...
Revocation is revocation, whether it happens now or a year from now. Maybe losing your certificate would be “more theater than value”, but it would have a significant impact on most of the rest of us.

if there was a reason to get her out of airplanes immediately, like willful, repeated violations, that can be done.

if there’s a clear danger to life and property, like taking 4 of your best friends up in your 172 after a few drinks, they’d show up with law enforcement and arrest you. Then you’d get to wait six months for your jury trial, probably while free on bail.

Some actions require consequences. But we’re not dogs...the consequences don’t have to be immediate in order to be relevant.
 
JimNtexas said:
Don't say 'well, it wouldn't have hurt the bridge'. How about the guy fishing off the bridge?
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be anyone fishing off that bridge, just like there wouldn't be anyone fishing off the Mackinac Bridge.
 
She's been flying out of LUK since Hector was a pup. I have no doubt she knows lots of CFIs. She can take a CFI along in the right seat for "instruction". The cost of a CFI is actually pretty minor compared to the other costs of maintaining an airplane.
 
steingar said:
She's been flying out of LUK since Hector was a pup. I have no doubt she knows lots of CFIs. She can take a CFI along in the right seat for "instruction". The cost of a CFI is actually pretty minor compared to the other costs of maintaining an airplane.
Click to expand...
She'll have to, and not for "instruction," but for instruction. That is if she wants her certificates back.
 
Lindberg said:
She'll have to, and not for "instruction," but for instruction. That is if she wants her certificates back.
Click to expand...
She needs a certain, minimum, amount of instruction, but if she wants to fly otherwise, it’s going to possibly be “instruction”. Both would be valid.
 
Salty said:
That’s exactly the point. There is no due process with administrative law.
Click to expand...
And from the government's perspective, that's exactly the point and why it's the preferred method of dealing with "things someone doesn't like". Much different burden of proof, and most frequently it's a case of the regulated party having to prove that they didn't commit a violation of policy as defined by the agency... not a matter of the agency proving that the regulated party violated the regulation beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are a lot of agencies that were created dating back to the 1930s and given this power.

Whether it's right or wrong isn't important for this thread (and gets into the political which really isn't right for this forum), it's what we have and what we have to deal with. And it's been upheld by the courts over the decades.
 
Bill said:
Sounds like she's poked the bear a good bit in the past. Poke the bear enough and he turns around and eats you. She got et.
Click to expand...
The Timothy Treadwell of the skies! ;)
 
This is speculation & opinion (which is what we do best here) and NOT statement of fact....

I would be surprised if this were the first time she did something like this. That bridge has been there for decades: the current one is version 2.

I would be surprised if she finds it easy or reasonable to get insurance again - both from age and from the standpoint of the violation on her record. I don't recall whether Ohio requires insurance by law or not.

Statement of fact:
Ohio state law prohibits "unsafe operation of aircraft". Opinion/speculation: My guess would be that ODNR determined that getting the FAA to take action was faster and more effective than trying to pursue a violation of Ohio Code.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4561.15
 
wsuffa said:
And from the government's perspective, that's exactly the point and why it's the preferred method of dealing with "things someone doesn't like". Much different burden of proof, and most frequently it's a case of the regulated party having to prove that they didn't commit a violation of policy as defined by the agency... not a matter of the agency proving that the regulated party violated the regulation beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are a lot of agencies that were created dating back to the 1930s and given this power.

Whether it's right or wrong isn't important for this thread (and gets into the political which really isn't right for this forum), it's what we have and what we have to deal with. And it's been upheld by the courts over the decades.
Click to expand...
My issue is with Doc's willfully ignoring the fact that there is no due process in regards to these actions. He likes to act like there is, when there ain't.
 
Salty said:
My issue is with Doc's willfully ignoring the fact that there is no due process in regards to these actions. He likes to act like there is, when there ain't.
Click to expand...

Nope, as I understand it, administrative law requires no due process. Broke the rules? Tough, accept the penalty.
 
Salty said:
My issue is with Doc's willfully ignoring the fact that there is no due process in regards to these actions. He likes to act like there is, when there ain't.
Click to expand...

My issue with Salty's willfully ignoring the fact he has no understanding of administrative law and relies on internet myths for his information.


Bill said:
Nope, as I understand it, administrative law requires no due process. Broke the rules? Tough, accept the penalty.
Click to expand...

How so? Can you explain the process the FAA uses in an investigation which may lead up to an enforcement? Which orders are used?

You can give us an outline if you wish.
 
Salty said:
There's that willful ignorance again. Like arguing that that blue isn't blue it's orange.
Click to expand...

You're the one displaying willful ignorance by refusing to even understand the subject. o_O:rolleyes:

And you conveniently edited my response which is typical. o_O
 
Doc Holliday said:
You're the one displaying willful ignorance by refusing to even understand the subject. o_O:rolleyes:

And you conveniently edited my response which is typical. o_O
Click to expand...
I understand what due process actually is and that it does not apply to administrative law. It doesn't seem like you do.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm arguing that it is more theater than value when a person deemed enough of a threat to go to a full suspension can exercise privileges (possibly safely?) for nearly a year before being hit with a sledgehammer for not respecting your authority,
Click to expand...
To use the thread buzz word "due process," let me see if I follow you. Your original point was that she was not not given any "due process" from the bridge event to the date of her certificate revocation. But now your point is that the "due process" took too long and allowed her to continue to fly for a year? Is that correct?

FYI: the FAA has emergency revocation powers which require a very high bar to cross because they--wait for it--deny a persons "due process." And in that year, according to the reporting, she didn't use half of her "due process" abilities to fight the revocation. Why not?

Salty said:
I understand what due process actually is.
Click to expand...
Curious. How do you define "due process?" In the similar cases I been involved, the individuals involved were given a fair chance to defend their actions under an established procedure with the ability to appeal to a higher level. And as mentioned above the FAA has the burden of proof. That pretty much sums up "due process" don't you think?
 
JimNtexas said:
I Martha did not fly under a bridge then she should fight the FAA on this tooth and nail.

If she did in fact fly under a bridge, and I suspect she did, then she should take her medicine like a big girl.

You can tap dance like a teenager with your whataboutism all you want, but flying under a bridge is the very definition of careless and reckless. Don't say 'well, it wouldn't have hurt the bridge'. How about the guy fishing off the bridge?
Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know all of the fact, so I don't want to make any kind of final pronouncement, and I would be happy to learn more of the facts, but it certainly doesn't strike me as an abuse of discretion to revoke a pilot certificate for flying under a bridge, particularly when you are talking about a former FAA employee, former DPE. I think it's pretty well understood that the FAA holds those with higher levels of knowledge to higher standards. She can reapply in a few months.

It's totally safe to fly under a bridge until something goes wrong, and then it isn't.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I have no doubt she knows lots of CFIs. She can take a CFI along in the right seat for "instruction". The cost of a CFI is actually pretty minor compared to the other costs of maintaining an airplane.
Click to expand...
Why would it need to be a CFI? Wouldn't a private pilot in the other seat be enough to make the flight legal? Assuming of course they're current and have a valid medical and whatever endorsements (complex, HP etc) the particular airplane used may require.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Would you have liked it better if the FAA just bypassed their process and immediately revoked her certificate?
Click to expand...
I suppose they could have issued an emergency revocation, and then she could have appealed whether there really was an emergency.
 
MauleSkinner said:
She needs a certain, minimum, amount of instruction, but if she wants to fly otherwise, it’s going to possibly be “instruction”. Both would be valid.
Click to expand...

She will also have to take those written tests. She should have a blast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top