What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

tdager said:
I have done it. The levels just give you a prima facia case. If I detected alcohol, and could articulate that your driving was erratic and a danger, I could nail you for DUI even under the legal limit.
Click to expand...


So the premise of alcohol being illegal outside the home is correct then, but only if you are displaying erratic behavior?
 
Ron Levy said:
Please feel free to tell the FAA that., because that's their thinking I've presented.
Click to expand...

Understood...but other than rail at the unstoppable force that is government there is little else I can do but vent, so do not take it personal sir.
 
Anthony said:
So the premise of alcohol being illegal outside the home is correct then, but only if you are displaying erratic behavior?
Click to expand...

For the most part, it is difficult to tell just by looking at someone, if they are impaired by alcohol, even more so if they are inside a car. A person has to draw attention to themselves. They do that by displaying erratic behavior. The cop is driving in traffic, and there are a load of cars going down the road all around him. Many people seem to think that the cop just randomly picks one out and hopes for the best. It doesn't work that way. Someone has to do something to catch the cop's attention. That is called erratic behavior. From the very beginning, the cop has to explain in court how he or she picked that particular person to stop. "I just thought that I would pull people over until I found a drunk" doesn't cut it. The cop has to articulate how that person who was arrested, did something out of the ordinary that caught the cop's attention.
 
Everskyward said:
Are you saying that you think people are being tricked into breaking the law in order to provide the municipality with revenue? Seems to me that prosecuting a drunk driving case would cost as much as any fines that are collected, especially if the person has to spend some time in jail. The revenue generator in my county is not drunk driving, it's speeding. Much easier, most people plea bargain by mail and pay the fine.
Click to expand...


Not really, DUI cases always pull in thousands in revenue, and for the most part, the expenses are fixed whether they prosecute or not. The justice system is a revenue generator.
 
Just to be clear, folks, gargling/rinsing with mouthwash is NOT gonna get you a bust on an intoxilyzer test. It shouldn't even do so on a roadside Alcosensor test, but for SURE won't do it on an intoxilyzer (breathalyzer). The timetables for the testing prevent oral residual alcohol from being a factor. Same is true for "breath mints". Enough with the old wives tales.
 
Did you guys ever think it won't be the FAA that puts her out of business, It will be the insurance companies, 1 DUI and see what happens to your car insurance. any airshow that hires her will pay way more than hiring anyone else.

she'll starve.

She better learn to say, " I'm a pilot, want fries with that"
 
NC19143 said:
Did you guys ever think it won't be the FAA that puts her out of business, It will be the insurance companies, 1 DUI and see what happens to your car insurance. any airshow that hires her will pay way more than hiring anyone else.

she'll starve.

She better learn to say, " I'm a pilot, want fries with that"
Click to expand...
That is a good observation Tom. I think you might be right on that!
 
smigaldi said:
That is a good observation Tom. I think you might be right on that!
Click to expand...

Remember the Bob Hoover issue? He got his medical back but no one would insure him.
 
So does anyone think Melissa will be the next "Patty"?

http://www.sportsgal.com


She flies aerobatics, rock climbs, and jumps out of perfectly good airplanes.
 

Attachments

  • melissa.jpg
    melissa.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 70
SkyHog said:
She's pretty hardcore, and attractive too. I hope she becomes famous someday for doing what she loves.
Click to expand...

She was on track for that until she got busted the 2nd time and lost her ticket for a year to an emergency revocation of her certificate.
 
PittsDriver said:
She was on track for that until she got busted the 2nd time and lost her ticket for a year to an emergency revocation of her certificate.
Click to expand...

What was she "busted" for?
 
Anthony said:
What was she "busted" for?
Click to expand...

The first time, it was impromptu aerobatics inside Class D airspace. She'd just been to a friend's wedding and felt the need to do some acro over the church where the wedding had taken place. Unfortunately, it was on the downwind of a Class D airport.

The second time, it was just a high speed low pass over the runway and abrupt pull up with the smoke on. Anecdotally, it was her attitude about the incident that got her the emergency revocation.

She wrote about the first incident in Sport Aerobatics magazine. I haven't seen anything from her on the second.
 
^^^^^^^^

Thanks PittsDriver. Just makes me want to date her even more. :D
 
PittsDriver said:
The first time, it was impromptu aerobatics inside Class D airspace. She'd just been to a friend's wedding and felt the need to do some acro over the church where the wedding had taken place. Unfortunately, it was on the downwind of a Class D airport.

The second time, it was just a high speed low pass over the runway and abrupt pull up with the smoke on. Anecdotally, it was her attitude about the incident that got her the emergency revocation.

She wrote about the first incident in Sport Aerobatics magazine. I haven't seen anything from her on the second.
Click to expand...
Ouch. I doubt a third incident is going to be as kind. Getting insurance to perform is another whole story.

As has been said many times, you just don't do stuff that in any way violates the rules. Unless, of course, your future as a pilot means nothing.
 
NC19143 said:
Did you guys ever think it won't be the FAA that puts her out of business, It will be the insurance companies, 1 DUI and see what happens to your car insurance. any airshow that hires her will pay way more than hiring anyone else.

she'll starve.

She better learn to say, " I'm a pilot, want fries with that"
Click to expand...

She needs her sponsor as much as she needs insurance.

Her friends have been trying to get her to retire from aerobatics while she's still alive anyway.

She probably won't starve because she can still make endorsements even if she's not flying, maybe after a time interval.
 
mikea said:
She needs her sponsor as much as she needs insurance..
Click to expand...


Yep ! that too..and with todays attitude towards alcohol ?

9 out of 10 people already know she guilty. trial or not.
 
ApacheBob said:
Now, I'm curious. Does anyone have a link to the NTSB report for Melissa Andrzejewski?
Click to expand...
See http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5263.PDF for the NTSB Order sustaining the FAA's second emergency revocation of her tickets. Note that this references her previous revocation, too.
Is she 25 years old now?
Click to expand...
Dunno.
Is she grounded?
Click to expand...
From the FAA database:
Name : ANDRZEJEWSKI, MELISSA DAWN
Airman's Address : 274 STERLING AVE
PACIFICA, CA, 94044-3946
FAA Region : Western/Pacific
Date of Medical : Nov, 2007
Class of Medical : 2
Expiration of Class 2 : Nov, 2008
Airman Certificates : Commercial Pilot Airplane Single and Multi Engine Land
Airplane Single Engine Sea
Click to expand...
Same Melissa Andrzejewski? Dunno that, either.
 
Melissa was a competitor at this year's US National aerobatic championships and came in 15th in unlimited. She's definitely flying again.

That transcript from the appeal of her revocation is a real eye opener. What a kangaroo court that was. They basically found that since she said she was on an aborted go-around with the smoke on that she was not being truthful - therefore, everything else she did was reckless and dangerous and aerobatic. Huh? They made no effort to refute any of her assertions about the how the airplane must be safely flown and how that might account for her maneuvering that was witnessed by two people totally unfamiliar with the performance and nature of that aircraft. They're basically holding that any low, high speed pass over a runway is a violation of the FARs because it's not necessary for normal flight.
 
PittsDriver said:
They're basically holding that any low, high speed pass over a runway is a violation of the FARs because it's not necessary for normal flight.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly a new position from the FAA, and there are plenty of cases on file on the subject.
 
PittsDriver said:
They're basically holding that any low, high speed pass over a runway is a violation of the FARs because it's not necessary for normal flight.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
That's not exactly a new position from the FAA, and there are plenty of cases on file on the subject.
Click to expand...

Really!!???

If I was on a normal approach, had announced or gotten approval for a low approach and then once over the runway accelerated without climbing, would that too be a violation?

Just curious, because it now sounds like just about every pilot I know has violated the FARS doing a low pass over the runway. I just hope that no FAA inspector ever comes to Sidnaw!
 
Going missed with the smoke on probably gave it away,:)
 
smigaldi said:
Really!!???

If I was on a normal approach, had announced or gotten approval for a low approach and then once over the runway accelerated without climbing, would that too be a violation?

Just curious, because it now sounds like just about every pilot I know has violated the FARS doing a low pass over the runway. I just hope that no FAA inspector ever comes to Sidnaw!
Click to expand...

I watched planes get permission from the tower to do low a pass over Meigs.
 
smigaldi said:
Really!!???

If I was on a normal approach, had announced or gotten approval for a low approach and then once over the runway accelerated without climbing, would that too be a violation?

Just curious, because it now sounds like just about every pilot I know has violated the FARS doing a low pass over the runway. I just hope that no FAA inspector ever comes to Sidnaw!
Click to expand...

You can always submit the airport manager's published reccomendation as evidence for why you "must" perform a low pass. :)
 
These folks performed a low pass. Wait, they got in trouble... but not with the FAA if I remember correctly.
 

Attachments

  • Cathay.jpg
    Cathay.jpg
    249.7 KB · Views: 44
smigaldi said:
Really!!???

If I was on a normal approach, had announced or gotten approval for a low approach and then once over the runway accelerated without climbing, would that too be a violation?

Just curious, because it now sounds like just about every pilot I know has violated the FARS doing a low pass over the runway. I just hope that no FAA inspector ever comes to Sidnaw!
Click to expand...


There was an article regarding this recently in the AOPA magazine. A low pass at an uncontrolled airfield is definitely a violation. A low pass with permission of the tower would probably constitute "permission from the FAA" and therefore would "probably not" be a violation.

I think this story was in an issue from last summer. I remember getting a pretty big laugh because the issue contained both an article about low passes being a violation and a story about a warbird complete with a photo of it doing a low pass...with gear up. Pretty funny, I thought, but I find humor in strange places.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
There was an article regarding this recently in the AOPA magazine. A low pass at an uncontrolled airfield is definitely a violation. A low pass with permission of the tower would probably constitute "permission from the FAA" and therefore would "probably not" be a violation.

I think this story was in an issue from last summer. I remember getting a pretty big laugh because the issue contained both an article about low passes being a violation and a story about a warbird complete with a photo of it doing a low pass...with gear up. Pretty funny, I thought, but I find humor in strange places.
Click to expand...

Silly. How about a low pass at an uncontrolled field as an exercise for instruction..as in keeping the plane traveling down the runway centerline in a cross wind?
 
smigaldi said:
Really!!???
Click to expand...
Really.
If I was on a normal approach, had announced or gotten approval for a low approach and then once over the runway accelerated without climbing, would that too be a violation?
Click to expand...
No, and there's case law on that, too. But, of course, that's not the same as the "low, high speed pass" about which I was commenting.
Just curious, because it now sounds like just about every pilot I know has violated the FARS doing a low pass over the runway.
Click to expand...
Only if you think a normal go-around is a "low, high speed pass" -- which the FAA doesn't. However, if you retract the gear 3 miles out on final, advance the throttle to full, and come up the runway at 10 feet with the airspeed in the yellow arc with an FAA Inspector watching, you may be in trouble.
 
mikea said:
I watched planes get permission from the tower to do low a pass over Meigs.
Click to expand...
Tower is not authorized to waive this rule. All they can do is ensure separation; this is not the same as authorizing violation of the rules against low-level high-speed flight. Tower assumes that you won't request such a maneuver if you don't have the necessary waiver, so if you ask, they'll clear you, and then it's between you and Flight Standards for the other stuff.
 
smigaldi said:
Fascinating!

Can you post, if it is available, the case law? I love reading stuff like that.
Click to expand...
I could, but the OkU-OkSU game is getting towards the end and I'll be walking the dogs in 3 minutes 44 seconds. Look in the NTSB Opinions and Orders web site.
 
timwinters said:
There was an article regarding this recently in the AOPA magazine. A low pass at an uncontrolled airfield is definitely a violation. A low pass with permission of the tower would probably constitute "permission from the FAA" and therefore would "probably not" be a violation.
.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this low pass violation. I do it some times for very good and logical reasons to enhance safety. Now you're telling me that making a low pass at an uncontrolled field is a violation? I'd like to see that source material.
 
A low pass can definitely be a good idea, especially when there's a possibility of wildlife on the runway. I think the questionability comes in when it's a high speed low pass. 10' - 20' AGL at cruise speed is hard to justify.
 
docmirror said:
I'm curious about this low pass violation. I do it some times for very good and logical reasons to enhance safety. Now you're telling me that making a low pass at an uncontrolled field is a violation? I'd like to see that source material.
Click to expand...
As Grant put it, the high speed, low pass is the one questionable. If all low passes were questionable, you'd have people being nailed all the time when going missed on practice approaches in VMC.

With the reports discussed in this thread, they are substantially more than questionable. In the case of Miss Andrzejewski, she's pushing her luck on a third violation.
 
docmirror said:
I'm curious about this low pass violation. I do it some times for very good and logical reasons to enhance safety. Now you're telling me that making a low pass at an uncontrolled field is a violation? I'd like to see that source material.
Click to expand...

The following is from last April's "Pilot Counsel". As I read it, this pertains to just about ANY low pass, not just high speed low passes. It simply states "where no landing is intended or possible due to the aircraft configuration". I don't read that as specifically meaning high speed.

Now, to our case. This NTSB decision involved a Gulfstream II multiengine jet operating in the vicinity of a beach and an airfield in Hawaii. The Gulfstream made two low passes off the shore of the beach, and one low pass down the runway of the airfield. These passes were part of pre-arranged filming for the marketing purposes of a production company. Two witnesses described the passes near the beach to be at an altitude they estimated to be at or below 100 feet above the water surface, and within several hundred feet laterally of surfers in the water and people on the beach. A retired FAA air traffic controller who was on duty in the airfield tower said that the Gulfstream approached the runway with gear and flaps retracted, leveled off at approximately 100 feet above the runway surface, and proceeded to make a low pass. The pilot’s explanations were not accepted. He explained that he was 1,000 feet above the water and saw no persons or objects in the water. With respect to the low passes over the airfield runway, he said that he had contacted the airport manager, and the person who answered the number listed under “Restrictions” in his AC-U-KWIK reference guide; that person expressed no objections to his intended pass down the runway.
Our concern here is not with the merits of the case and the dispute about the altitudes that were flown (the pilot wound up with a 150-day suspension of his ATP), but with two FAA and NTSB interpretations gleaned from the case.
Is a beach a congested area? Buried in its wordy decision, the board perfunctorily held that the persons on the beach made it a congested area as an “open air assembly of persons.” It did so without providing any guidance as to how many persons and how closely assembled the persons need to be to constitute a congested area. But clearly the board and the FAA gave notice that a pass below a thousand feet over open water near a beach is problematic.
Is an airport a congested area? The board, perhaps without thinking much about it, did so hold—assuming there are persons in the vicinity. Based on the testimony of an FAA inspector, the board found that the pass down the runway endangered the “individuals in the vicinity of the airport” and therefore implicitly held that the airfield was a congested area. The board seemed to accept that a pass down the runway would be excused if it were “necessary for takeoff or landing,” but the board cited one of its earlier decisions holding that the “landing exceptions do not apply where no landing is intended or possible due to the aircraft configuration.” The board also seemed to suggest that such a pass would be excused if it were with the permission of the FAA. The permission of airport authorities apparently is not enough.

And, in this same issue there was an article about a super Corsair entitled "childhood dreams". In that article there was a photo of the plane doing a low pass down a runway, gear up. I thought the juxtaposition was hilarious.

This ruling makes no sense, common or otherwise, but it's rare for anyone to use the words "sense" and "FAA" in the same sentence.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Tower is not authorized to waive this rule. All they can do is ensure separation;
Click to expand...

Meigs was a Class D airspace, towered field is my recollection. Towers at class D airports don't ensure separation in the air - only on the ground. They might act like it, but they have no responsibility for airbourne traffic separation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top