Martha Lunken has privileges revoked

Did they confiscate her plane? If she doesn't care about the rules, she's probably still flying without a ticket.
 
Joe_B1 said:
Did they confiscate her plane? If she doesn't care about the rules, she's probably still flying without a ticket.
Click to expand...
From the link in post #1:

"She can reapply, as if she were a student, but not until December. After a lifetime of flying, more than 14,000 hours, she must retake a pilot test she last took in 1962. And she cannot fly by herself until she passes."​

In a Flying Magazine article (which I believe was also linked in this thread), she wrote:

"In the meantime, I’ll stay proficient by flying with an appropriately rated friend as PIC in the 180."​
 
Joe_B1 said:
Did they confiscate her plane? If she doesn't care about the rules, she's probably still flying without a ticket.
Click to expand...
From the link in post #1:

"She can reapply, as if she were a student, but not until December. After a lifetime of flying, more than 14,000 hours, she must retake a pilot test she last took in 1962. And she cannot fly by herself until she passes."​

In a Flying Magazine article (which I believe was also linked in this thread), she wrote:

"In the meantime, I’ll stay proficient by flying with an appropriately rated friend as PIC in the 180."​
 
Palmpilot said:
From the link in post #1:

"She can reapply, as if she were a student, but not until December. After a lifetime of flying, more than 14,000 hours, she must retake a pilot test she last took in 1962. And she cannot fly by herself until she passes."​

In a Flying Magazine article (which I believe was also linked in this thread), she wrote:

"In the meantime, I’ll stay proficient by flying with an appropriately rated friend as PIC in the 180."​
Click to expand...
Uh huh, that's the official story. If she flies under bridges and turns off her transponder to avoid detection, I doubt she isn't flying solo. She strikes me as someone who doesn't GAF about rules and restrictions.
 
Joe_B1 said:
Uh huh, that's the official story. If she flies under bridges and turns off her transponder to avoid detection, I doubt she isn't flying solo. She strikes me as someone who doesn't GAF about rules and restrictions.
Click to expand...

I dunno. She's got a lot of eyes on her now, and I feel the citizenry is increasingly indoctrinated to turn in anybody, for anything. I think somebody would make the call.
 
GaryM said:
I dunno. She's got a lot of eyes on her now, and I feel the citizenry is increasingly indoctrinated to turn in anybody, for anything. I think somebody would make the call.
Click to expand...
Yes, and flying without certificates to revoke would leave the FAA without any option other than referring her to the DOJ for prosecution, which could lead to a fine or even prison time.
 
Palmpilot said:
Yes, and flying without certificates to revoke would leave the FAA without any option other than referring her to the DOJ for prosecution, which could lead to a fine or even prison time.
Click to expand...

And the DOJ does need something to do since there isn’t enough corruption in the elite class for them to pursue. Putting little old ladies in prison is more fun anyway.
 
Oooh, dang. Good point... Note to self, don’t hang around little old ladies named Martha.
 
Zeldman said:
This gives me something to look forward to do when I turn 80...
Click to expand...

Oh, if I make it to 95, I plan to mainline heroin just to see what all the fuss is about. If I can figure out how to score any.
 
Joe_B1 said:
Uh huh, that's the official story. If she flies under bridges and turns off her transponder to avoid detection, I doubt she isn't flying solo. She strikes me as someone who doesn't GAF about rules and restrictions.
Click to expand...

Except now the stakes are higher. If she gets busted flying with no pilot certificate, she will get time being the guest of the government.
 
Pilawt said:
I think the fact that Martha was once FAA herself made it worse on her. There is nothing that power groups hate worse than one of their own going rogue.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Yes, they won't cut her any slack because she clearly should have known better. No, because I doubt the underfunded, overworked, and maligned bureaucrats at the FAA think of themselves as a power group (they'd probably be too depressed even to laugh at the label).
 
Zeldman said:
This gives me something to look forward to do when I turn 80...
Click to expand...

As I am approaching this milestone, I can say without hesitation there’s a helluva lot more to do involving things other than airplanes:cool:. “Know what I mean. Know what I mean, nudge, nudge. Say no more, Say no more.” Monty Python.

Cheers
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, it wouldn't be the first time the DOJ went after an elderly woman named Martha.
Click to expand...
I didn't think Martha Stewart qualified as elderly when they threw her in the slammer.
 
At her age and social prominence, she probably isn't thinking about the FAA or consequences. How is the gubmint tracking her? How do they know if she's busting rules. If she is, she could move her plane around small airports so they won't know where to put the ramp check police.

If by some chance she got caught, she most likely would play the "big gov. busting on a little old lady" card.
 
Every time this pops up, I can't help but think...If I had reason to believe I wouldn't pass my next medical or otherwise thought it was time to hang it up, it would be hard to resist doing a stunt like this, especially if I was already an attention hound.

I'd probably pick the STL Arch, although that would probably result in terrorist charges these days.
 
Jim K said:
Every time this pops up, I can't help but think...If I had reason to believe I wouldn't pass my next medical or otherwise thought it was time to hang it up, it would be hard to resist doing a stunt like this, especially if I was already an attention hound.

I'd probably pick the STL Arch, although that would probably result in terrorist charges these days.
Click to expand...

Maybe hit STL arch and then head over to Chicago to land at Meigs Field.
 
David Megginson said:
Yes and no. Yes, they won't cut her any slack because she clearly should have known better. No, because I doubt the underfunded, overworked, and maligned bureaucrats at the FAA think of themselves as a power group (they'd probably be too depressed even to laugh at the label).
Click to expand...

Some FSDOs seem to. (Looking at SAT).
 
Pilawt said:
I think the fact that Martha was once FAA herself made it worse on her. There is nothing that power groups hate worse than one of their own going rogue.
Click to expand...
Depends on what team you play for. Kevin Clinesmith got virtually no punishment for fabricating and submitting evidence to a court. If I, or any other lawyer did that, we'd be walking around a used car lot in a loud plaid sports jacket.

He played for the right, I mean Left team.
 
freely admits guilt and having knowingly violated FAR 91.119....
Says she doesn't want any kid or anybody to go flying under a bridge....

Then says she hiked under the bridge and determined that flying under the interstate highway would not pose a risk to others....
Also says she knows she wasn't endangering anybody...

Sounds like she learned her lesson :rolleyes:
 
Deelee said:
freely admits guilt and having knowingly violated FAR 91.119....
Says she doesn't want any kid or anybody to go flying under a bridge....

Then says she hiked under the bridge and determined that flying under the interstate highway would not pose a risk to others....
Also says she knows she wasn't endangering anybody...

Sounds like she learned her lesson :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
She definitely sounds like "Others shouldn't do it, but I know what I'm doing"
 
Last edited:
The AOPA article appears to indicate that she took the written tests again and a checkride again.

So that sounds like a new cert. However the FAA airman search still indicates “none” for certificates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top