What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

[ScottM]

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.

This is exactly what I was thinking of. Low passes at runways at night around here are the norm. Especially this time of year when the deer are mating, looking for food now that the fields are plowed under and hangout out in places where you would not normally see them. I have seent ehm walking down taxiways in fall and just standing on the runway. A night time low pass helps to get them out of the way. I see this being part of the normal landing at some fields.

 

[PittsDriver]

I don't think Melissa got busted for a low pass. She got it stuck to her because the FAA felt like she disrespected their authority by saying that she was doing an aborted landing at 180 kts with the smoke on. If you read the NTSB appeal, the original judge let her off and the FAA appealed (which is a whole 'nother issue in and of itself). The final opinion that reversed the original decision held that what she said she was doing was obviously not what she was doing, therefore - smack.

This all just reenforces my opinion that the last place in the world you want to find yourself, innocent or guilty, is in court with a judgement pending. It's pretty obvious that a pilot of her skills in that plane was doing nothing remotely reckless or dangerous but the two rectal itches on the ramp, in a moment of self righteous indignation, felt the need to act. One can only hope that there's some truth to karma...

 

[poadeleted20]

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.

They ensure separation with aircraft on the runway. Thus, when cleared for a low pass, they are ensuring you will not interfere with aircraft taking off from or landing on the runway. This includes 500 feet vertical separation from aircraft on the runway.

 

[poadeleted20]

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.

If you go through the case law (I don't have time now to find all the cases again), you'll see the NTSB specifically exempts low approaches for legitimate purposes (e.g., instrument training missed approaches, practice go-arounds, etc) when done in a legitimate manner. OTOH, if you come screaming down the runway gear-up at full throttle and near-redline speed, you'll have a hard time convincing them you were checking the condition of the turf, a task best performed at minimum, not maximum, speed.

 

[Tom-D]

I don't think Melissa got busted for a low pass. She got it stuck to her because the FAA felt like she disrespected their authority by saying that she was doing an aborted landing at 180 kts with the smoke on. If you read the NTSB appeal, the original judge let her off and the FAA appealed (which is a whole 'nother issue in and of itself). The final opinion that reversed the original decision held that what she said she was doing was obviously not what she was doing, therefore - smack.

This all just reenforces my opinion that the last place in the world you want to find yourself, innocent or guilty, is in court with a judgement pending. It's pretty obvious that a pilot of her skills in that plane was doing nothing remotely reckless or dangerous but the two rectal itches on the ramp, in a moment of self righteous indignation, felt the need to act. One can only hope that there's some truth to karma...

180k with the smoke on,,,,,,,,,,yeah, I can see their point.

then she says aborted landing,,,,,,,yeah right!

 

[RotorAndWing]

This all just reenforces my opinion that the last place in the world you want to find yourself, innocent or guilty, is in court with a judgement pending. It's pretty obvious that a pilot of her skills in that plane was doing nothing remotely reckless or dangerous but the two rectal itches on the ramp, in a moment of self righteous indignation, felt the need to act. One can only hope that there's some truth to karma...

"Those who can do, those who can't become FAA Inspectors".

Remember, the qualifications to become an FAA Inspector are 250 hours TT and a Commercial/Instrument rating. That's it. No need to have knowledge of the FAR's, aircraft performance or anything else related to aviation. It's purely a bureaucratic job to hold and count down the days until retirement.

Now let me clarify, there are some good Inspectors out there that try to make a difference and can even use good judgment, but they are rare, very rare. My friends that work in the FAA will even tell you just how screwed up it is from the inside and how petty it becomes dealing with these guys.

The bottom line is to stay out of the radar of these guys.

 

[TMetzinger]

Um, they also want the full CFI panel now (CFI, CFI-I, CFI-ME) for GA inspectors. There are quite a few vacancies opening up.

 

[docmirror]

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.

Guys, lighten up a bit. this above is an exact, unmodified quote that I questioned. It didn't make any exception for speed, gear position, intended landing, etc. It just said what it said. What has come since then makes sense but I can tell you that I do a low pass with gear and flaps up, because I have no intention of landing, which is the basic definition of a low pass. As I'm learning about water ops, a low pass is highly recommended at waterways that the pilot is unfamiliar with. In fact, I believe it's in the ASES curriculum. Although that has nothing to do with an uncontrolled field.

I guess it's just another reg that I break, add it to the hundreds of others. If the feds take a way my ticket I'll just have to fly low and slow and stay away from airports(easy when I finish the ASES rating)

 

[poadeleted20]

"Those who can do, those who can't become FAA Inspectors".

Remember, the qualifications to become an FAA Inspector are 250 hours TT and a Commercial/Instrument rating.

You won't find an FAA Inspector out in a FSDO with only those minimums. Typically, they have thousands of hours of military, 135, 121, and/or instructing experience, often with experience as a DPE. While I have run into inspectors with only military/121 background who have little understanding of light GA, usually those folks are covering air carrier, not GA, operations, and are very knowledgeble and experienced in the large turbine aircraft operations they're covering.

 

[mikea]

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.

True but as I recall the low passes were requested and approved by the tower.

This is the same great contract controller you hear on the near mid air recording, who I also monitored when a Grumman Albatross announced he'd land in the lake. "I can't clear you to land in the lake. Advise when you're airborne."

 

[RotorAndWing]

You won't find an FAA Inspector out in a FSDO with only those minimums. Typically, they have thousands of hours of military, 135, 121, and/or instructing experience, often with experience as a DPE. While I have run into inspectors with only military/121 background who have little understanding of light GA, usually those folks are covering air carrier, not GA, operations, and are very knowledgeble and experienced in the large turbine aircraft operations they're covering.

I actually know an inspector hired with barely the required qualifications. I also know another inspector that parker penned his logbook and was hired.

I can print page after page of experiences with these "very knowledgeable" Inspectors I have dealt with in both GA and the Air Carrier world. It's truly appalling at the lack of education, much less aviation experience of some of these.

As an example I was ramp checked in the airline by an Inspector who declared she was going to ground my airplane because we had not been logging VOR checks as required by the FAR's. After showing her the GOM and the AOM preflight checks, she still demanded that the FAR requires a log entry. After several phone calls between company and her supervisor she finally backed off, but refused to admit she was wrong.

Then about 3 months ago I had an Airworthiness Inspector try to tell me I had to make logbook entries before starting an inspection. He insisted it was in the FAR's, so I handed him my FAR's and asked to please show me. After fumbling around he found something else he wanted to discuss. He said he would get back with me on this subject with the proper guidance, and as of yet I haven't heard from him (and won't).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

Are you kidding? First of all, to clear wildlife, the louder and more annoying the better - That means full power. Second, the last place I want to be is at the departure end of the runway with no altitude and no excess energy. If the engine fails, I'm in the trees.

IMHO, the only safe way to do the deer-clearing pass is at high speed, so that if something happens you can convert the extra energy into altitude and options.

 

[PittsDriver]

They ensure separation with aircraft on the runway. Thus, when cleared for a low pass, they are ensuring you will not interfere with aircraft taking off from or landing on the runway. This includes 500 feet vertical separation from aircraft on the runway.

That may be the rule they're operating under but I can speak from number experiences that it doesn't work that way. I've been one of three aircraft all on final and all cleared to land on the same runway at the same time. In one case when cleared to land #2 I responded that I didn't have #1 in sight. Renton Tower responded "That's because he's right under you." I've always operated under the premise that no separation is offered unless the wheels are on the ground.

 

[poadeleted20]

That may be the rule they're operating under but I can speak from number experiences that it doesn't work that way. I've been one of three aircraft all on final and all cleared to land on the same runway at the same time. In one case when cleared to land #2 I responded that I didn't have #1 in sight. Renton Tower responded "That's because he's right under you." I've always operated under the premise that no separation is offered unless the wheels are on the ground.

Your premise is not supported by FAA Order 7110.65.

 

[weirdjim]

Um, they also want the full CFI panel now (CFI, CFI-I, CFI-ME) for GA inspectors. There are quite a few vacancies opening up.

Doesn't the FULL CFI panel include CFI-G?

 

[poadeleted20]

Doesn't the FULL CFI panel include CFI-G?

No, and not CFI-R, either. Airplane (SE/ME) and Instrument-Airplane are enough.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No, and not CFI-R, either. Airplane (SE/ME) and Instrument-Airplane are enough.

Be interesting watching one of those guys give a checkride in a helicopter or glider..........

 

[RotorAndWing]

Um, they also want the full CFI panel now (CFI, CFI-I, CFI-ME) for GA inspectors. There are quite a few vacancies opening up.

Just looked through the Jobs bank. No openings there.

Oh well, maybe my dream job someday........

 

[KennyFlys]

Hiring is on hold until the next CR is passed. By the way, my initial new hire class averaged over 14,000 hours and 4.8 types each. Everyone was a Chief Pilot, Director of Operations, Director of Training, well you get the idea, for 121 and/or 135 carriers. Before you lump all inspectors into the group of "can't make it in the real world" types, think of all the dumb-ass pilots sitting in cockpits.

30+ years in industry having held all the above positions, along with a few more, as well as beating the averages I noted for my class, and more than a few years on the dark side as both a GA and Air Carrier POI qualifies me to say the majority is always slandered by the incompetence of a few, regardless of what side of the fence you happen to be on at the time.

Having watched the inspectors during our 141 certification process, I'm more than certain you speak the truth. These folks have been very helpful.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Hiring is on hold until the next CR is passed. By the way, my initial new hire class averaged over 14,000 hours and 4.8 types each. Everyone was a Chief Pilot, Director of Operations, Director of Training, well you get the idea, for 121 and/or 135 carriers. Before you lump all inspectors into the group of "can't make it in the real world" types, think of all the dumb-ass pilots sitting in cockpits.

30+ years in industry having held all the above positions, along with a few more, as well as beating the averages I noted for my class, and more than a few years on the dark side as both a GA and Air Carrier POI qualifies me to say the majority is always slandered by the incompetence of a few, regardless of what side of the fence you happen to be on at the time.

I suspect your new hire class has such high time pilots due to the downturn of the US air carriers, not that these guys decided to ditch their airline career voluntarily.

The FAA is disorganized at best. Even though the FAA preaches "standardization" they are the most "non-standard" organization.

It's too bad there is not someway to weed out the bad apples that permeate the FAA. Like most other bureaucracies, incompetence is rewarded. If someone is a big enough screw up it's easier to promote them to get rid of them.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Having watched the inspectors during our 141 certification process, I'm more than certain you speak the truth. These folks have been very helpful.

I too went through the 141 process when I owned my business. Glad it went well for you, it took me a year and a half to achieve the certificate.

I used the manuals from a previously approved school, just re-wrote them placing our name where the previous school's name was. The FSDO denied the manual and wanted several revisions!

Sent the revisions in, would sit on the Inspector's desk for two months and then they would send it back and want something else changed. Just yet another disfunctional FAA encounter

 

[RotorAndWing]

I just know I continue to strive not to become the kind of Inspector I despised while in industry, and I am not in the minority by a long shot.

 

[Witmo]

Back to the original topic: Case has been closed after Wagstaff plea of no contest to OWI. Refusal to submit to breath/blood test charge was dismissed. see http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail...0&offset=0&mode=charges&submit=Charge+History

 

[B2Soar]

So Patty had to pay about $700 and cannot drive for 8 months. Is that in just Wisconsin or everywhere? What about flying?

 

[alaskaflyer]

So Patty had to pay about $700 and cannot drive for 8 months. Is that in just Wisconsin or everywhere? What about flying?

Her license to drive in Wisconsin was revoked for 8 months. Without getting into the finer points of the Interstate Driver's License Compact, it all depends on the rules of the state in which her driver's license was issued. It would be a fair assumption to say that she cannot drive for 8 months anywhere, unless her state allows for a restricted or conditional license for certain activities such as commuting to work or school during that period.

Edit: She is a Florida resident. Assuming that she has a Florida DL, and Wisconsin reports the revocation to Florida, Florida will revoke her license, thus preventing her from driving in any state. Wisconsin is not a member of the DLC, but still reports to other states according to their website.

As for flying I think that is discussed earlier in the thread. The issue will be with her medical.

 

[poadeleted20]

Patty's done driving for a while. As for flying, the 60-day clock for reporting this motor vehicle action under 61.15(e) started ticking today. Typically, such a first motor vehicle action does not result in any FAA certificate action, but they may require her to submit the results of the "alcohol assessment" which was part of the court's sentence, or to undergo an FAA-ordered assessment. In theory, if such an assessment finds deeper issues, further action on her medical could follow. Bruce can probably shed more light on that part.

 

[gprellwitz]

Does anyone know whether airshow waivers and other special privileges or waivers like that are typically reviewed in the aftermath of an alcohol-related motor vehicle action?

 

[KennyFlys]

Does anyone know whether airshow waivers and other special privileges or waivers like that are typically reviewed in the aftermath of an alcohol-related motor vehicle action?

I have to wonder how her insurance coverage might be affected when it comes to future air show performances.

 

[poadeleted20]

Grant and Kenny have asked the $64 questions. Time will tell.

 

[AdamZ]

Richard is pretty much dead bang on.

 

[B2Soar]

I noticed that Patty is scheduled for Fargo Airshow Aug 22 and 23, 2009. Good to see she will be performing again. Also the Blue Angels. I really hope to be there!

 

[Dean]

I noticed that Patty is scheduled for Fargo Airshow Aug 22 and 23, 2009. Good to see she will be performing again. Also the Blue Angels. I really hope to be there!

She is also on the schedule to perform at the new Branson Airport May 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th, lets she if she makes her appearance.

 

[NW_Pilot]

But people can take Pharmaceuticals ie: Anti Depressants (Pansy Pills), Pain Killers, and Other Mind Altering Prescribed Substances and Drive?

 

[NW_Pilot]

I have to wonder how her insurance coverage might be affected when it comes to future air show performances.

Like any other aviation biz she has a corporation with corporate policy.

 

[KennyFlys]

Like any other aviation biz she has a corporation with corporate policy.

That doesn't obligate the carrier to cover someone after observing national news of actions that bring their judgment to question. Take a look at your auto policy. I'm sure there's a clause that allows them to cancel at any time with notice; usually thirty days.

 

[poadeleted20]

Like any other aviation biz she has a corporation with corporate policy.

If so, her policy will, like any other corporate aviation policy, require the company to meet certain qualification standards and report certain events for its pilots. I suspect a 61.15 "motor vehicle action" for any covered pilot must be reported to the insurer just as we have to report it under our policies on the annual qualifications questionnaire if not before.

 

[alaskaflyer]

But people can take Pharmaceuticals ie: Anti Depressants (Pansy Pills), Pain Killers, and Other Mind Altering Prescribed Substances and Drive?

They cannot be intoxicated. I have successfully prosecuted three people who were taking lawfully prescribed narcotics who were unfit to drive safely, which their driving behavior reflected.

 

[bullwinkle]

They cannot be intoxicated. I have successfully prosecuted three people who were taking lawfully prescribed narcotics who were unfit to drive safely, which their driving behavior reflected.

Yup, same here back in the day when I was a cop. A prescription is not a license to drive impaired. Drivers are assumed to know when they are impaired and refrain from operating a vehicle at that time, same as pilots.

 

[gprellwitz]

Yup, same here back in the day when I was a cop. A prescription is not a license to drive impaired. Drivers are assumed to know when they are impaired and refrain from operating a vehicle at that time, same as pilots.

Yes, but how many of them really understand that? The message that gets out is "don't drink and drive", not "don't drive impaired." They think "Oh, I didn't drink, so I must be okay." That's why we have a bunch of MADDs, not a bunch of MAIDs (Mothers Against Impaired Driving).

 

[CJones]

for some reason this thread reminded me of this hilarious picture:

QUICK!! Someone beer me!!