Subsequent to the pilot's bill of rights, it's the FAA burden to prove a revocation is proper, but the applicant's burden to prove that a non-issuance of a certificate was in error. And I don't think that there is any standard, not even for criminal matters, that requires proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Martha Lunken has privileges revoked
- Thread starter X3 Skier
- Start date
-
- Tags
- faa lunken stunt flying.
Subsequent to the pilot's bill of rights, it's the FAA burden to prove a revocation is proper, but the applicant's burden to prove that a non-issuance of a certificate was in error. And I don't think that there is any standard, not even for criminal matters, that requires proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Never. It is you that attempts to use anecdotes (or rather the lack of) to prove your point, not me.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not for “instruction”.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
You haven’t proved a thing except how you still don’t understand administrative law.
But that’s never stopped you before.
denverpilot
Tied Down
By the rules or by actual skill and experience?
If a 61 year machine operator of any sort tells me that they can do something with that machine that many can’t do, I’m inclined to believe them. Even if illegal.
Clearly she did it.
If you said it would also make a whole bunch of bureaucrats super butthurt that she did it and survived it — also true.
Is it okay for everyone to fly under bridges? Probably not the 200 hour wonders screeching she’s unsafe who can’t hold a constant heading, attitude, or altitude.
Was it okay for her to do it? Not legally but I wouldn’t have placed $100 bet against anyone with 61 years flying aircraft and teaching who said they could.
Nobody else on board and nobody on the bridge? I could care less if someone with that many years flying wants to try it.
Tell me where to park my lawn chair for the best viewing angle.
Wise in the era of cameras everywhere? Definitely not.
As of right now, more people with low level waivers and proper paperwork have splatted themselves than she has.
Inconvenient truth.
Would I ever counsel anyone to do what she did? Hell no. Do I actually care that she did it? Also hell no.
First I’ve even heard of her but after seeing that bridge photo above and knowing her experience level as stated here... definitely don’t care.
FAA grumpy bears who write rule books? They’ll stomp her until she genuflects enough to their liking. Nooooo doubt.
We all know at a certain experience level flying under a bridge is something we could do if we had to. This ain’t about that.
When you flaunt rules and you die... “Pilot error.”
When you follow rules and you die... “Pilot error.”
When you flaunt rules and survive... now they’re really pizzed. LOL.
GaryM
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2020
- Messages
- 2,573
- Location
- Was KMMU, looking at KCOE
- Display Name
Display name:
Gary M
I’ll just say I very much enjoy her columns, and I can’t wait for the one she writes about this incident.
Though I’m sure she won’t submit it for publication for a very long time.
Though I’m sure she won’t submit it for publication for a very long time.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wonder if the FAA will condition her new ticket on a gag order. "demonstrating a willingness to comply...."
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
So would it be OK for a 2500 hour helicopter pilot to fire a potato cannon from his whirlybird?
Asking for a friend of a friend - have neither a helicopter ticket nor a flying machine.
True. I just meant if she wants to reapply for her certificates, she'll have to re-take all the written tests.
Sorry. I have read this sentence a few times, and I'm still not quite able to suss out what you mean here. I think she can only splat herself once, if that is where you were going.
DFH65
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 2,629
- Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
Can she log ACTING as a pilot vs. being a pilot. Inquiring minds want to know?
When and if I am flying at 78ish years old I doubt I will care if they wont insure me and my little single engine airplane.
The FAA "flaunts" the rules. Martha Lunken flouted the rules.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
When I used the word "act" I was thinking along the lines of acting as an entitled a-hole, as far as the pilot part, not a very good showing for her, but I bet she logged it.
I submit much of the past year has probably revolved around this conversation:
FAA - "Martha, we have you cold. But we'll cut you a break if you promise you will never again mention the FAA in your columns."
Martha - "But that's half my material!"
FAA - "Take it or leave it. We can ground you, but we won't if you'll play nice."
Martha - "But I'll lose my livelihood! If you ground me, the column I'll write will be a beaut!"
FAA - "If you write it, you'll never fly again!"
Martha - "But that's half my material!"
FAA - "Take it or leave it. We can ground you, but we won't if you'll play nice."
Martha - "But I'll lose my livelihood! If you ground me, the column I'll write will be a beaut!"
FAA - "If you write it, you'll never fly again!"
Do airports require aircraft based there to be insured?
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
I have to smile reading this thread--people defending a pilot who knowingly broke the rules and criticizing the FAA for sanctioning her. This story is not like an out of control FAA pulling Bob Hoover's medical certificate for no good reason. The FAA had good reason to pull her certificate. "But she obviously had the skill to fly under a bridge" is not a defense. I have plenty of skills I choose not to exercise because they would expose me to sanctions but more importantly, I have no good reason to exercise them. Some people want to crucify pilots for the dreaded "any aircraft in the area, plese advise" radio call but want to look the other way for a pilot who flies under a bridge...really? Legally fly an overhead pattern or a straight-in at a pilot controlled field, horrors, but fly under a bridge--just good fun. Do I think she deserves a revokation vs. a suspension? If she had a history of violations, yes but for a first "offense" a suspension of her certificate would have been sufficient.
Clearly, no. She isn't rated. I suppose if/when she gets her solo endorsement from her CFI, she can log her solo time.
Well, here's an example:
https://www.flyingmag.com/unusual-attitudes-another-screw-up/
This isn't her first violation. There are two incidents mentioned in that one article, both of which damaged someone else's aircraft and could have had worse consequences. And even without formal actions, she and the FAA have been battling for years, including the time she worked for the FAA.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,837
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
I think people like Martha for her pragmatic and often anti-authority views on aviation and the FAA. They are bought in enough to defend the indefensible when she's involved.
Some do, some don't, and some do but never ask for proof.
Lindberg
Final Approach
This is not accurate. Due process requirement are different depending on the context. But due process does apply to administrative law.
IMO you cannot have due process without the presumption of innocence.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
I think the point here is not that there is or isn't any due process in FAA administrative law. It is there under most definitions of what people would call due process, but it is very biased in favor of the government, rather than carried out to a criminal standard. Some examples of biases are:
The need to proceed through a very long and expensive process, exhausting all administrative remedies, prior to even getting to an appeals court.
Needing to carefully preserve all issues for the appeal through the entire process to even have a change of getting there.
In many cases, only being able to appeal the administrative issues.
Even the rules for mailing in the process are biased, where the government gets to count the time in transit to the recipient as part of their legally required notice time but not the other way around.
And the administrative judges used are often much lower quality than you will see in a criminal or appeals court.
Eventually, justice delayed or made sufficiently expensive is justice denied. How long constitutes 'justice denied' is a judgement call.
As I have said above, I tend to think it would be better to get rid of regulations about "things someone doesn't like". Find other ways of dealing with them than getting a threat to use armed force involved (not that it often is, mind you). If Lunken really did something that endangered people, try her for criminal reckless endangerment. That would send a much stronger message actually. If it can't make a criminal standard, then perhaps try something else, like contacting her insurance company.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Why do believe there's no presumption of innocence in this situation?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Bah. Goofed that. Good catch.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
What it would be fair to say is that there is no presumption of innocence to a reasonable doubt standard. It sounds like certificate revocation may now be to a higher standard, but most administrative law actions are to the preponderance of evidence standard. They are civil proceedings.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Ummm. The more blunt version would be, “There’s a lot of dead airshow pilots who followed the rules.”
In other words, rules really aren’t what saves you when doing risky things near terra firma. Skill is.
I say it’s inconvenient because it’s the problem with all rule books, not just FAA’s.
History is full of people who broke rules and survived it.
Some are lucky enough to have circumstances where they can even crash multiple airplanes and survive it and learn things nobody else can from it.
Hoover comes to mind. He didn’t get good just from flying. He got good from crashing too.
But in non-wartime and not in a job where you’re expected to crash... you’ll probably make more people grumpy then he did.
NOT saying Martha is this at all, but SOME rule breakers often are extremely good at what they do and can do it all day while it’ll kill or harm nearly everybody else in some fashion.
Reiterating carefully here: I don’t care in the slightest what she does, nor knew of her before the thread. It’s none of my business whatsoever.
It’s just my viewpoint that just because there’s a rule against something doesn’t actually mean it’s impossible or even that difficult. Somebody just doesn’t want you to do it.
Make that somebody mad and do it anyway, well... it’s your headache and your drama... enjoy.
The burden of proof is in the wrong place for a presumption of innocence.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,263
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
I don’t understand the meaning here. The burden of proof is on the government to show by a preponderance of evidence that a violation occurred.
denverpilot
Tied Down
LOL.
I have a feeling I missed another thread on this one, knowing you Bill!
I mean, they do those wild hog hunts from whirlybirds...
I always thought an AC-130 would be more effective considering how fast those things breed...
If we could just find one surplussed, I’m sure there’s a business model for it in Texas...
No it isn’t. The burden of proof is on you to show that a violation did not occur. They don’t have to show anyone anything.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Really? And where do you get that from?
Reality
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Give it up, you are really making yourself look foolish here.
Head in the sand. Feel free to tell me what you can do to stop an action against you before it happens. The answer is nothing. Because there is no due process. There is no argument about it. You can ignore reality if you want, but there is no due process.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Like you can do with a court trial? It’s a simple 88mph...
You can argue the judge will side with the cop, but at least they don’t report to the same guy in the same office.
you can argue due process isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean it exists in admin law. It doesn’t. It’s one of the defining features of admin law.