Homeland Security got suspicious...

Yup. I made an unscheduled stop on an IFR flight plan recently. The controller asked why, but my sense was that he was making sure that I wasn't deviating because of an emergency that I didn't announce.

I changed my destination on an IFR flight plan a couple of summers ago. I was solid IFR in smoke at 12,000 in Idaho headed to a cheap refueling stop at a mountain airport in UT.

I changed to land at Ogden UT, controller asked why. I told him I was not going into a mountain airport IFR that I had never been to before. Cheaper gas was not worth it. It's a lunch/refuel pit stop. Still didn't get out of the IFR smoke until about 10 miles from Ogden, and then it was still marginal.
 
About 2 years ago a very good friend of mine started working with the FAA doing this very kind of investigation. After a short chat about what triggers an investigation I started laughing and explained that 75% of my flights should end up in an arrest.

He has gotten a lot better but only after being around the block for a bit.
 
Just tell ATC you got a booty call from Jeh Johnson's wife.
 
Exactly!















Didn't have a thing to do with you actually.



My life is actually quite laid back, I know a few good guys who have become cops, however the demographics of most police does cause issues, their is the is against them training and attitude which causes issues, etc.



Shy of the few older cops still in the streets, most of these young guys have this tactical John Wayne crap going on and are dead set on finding and eliminating trouble, problem is when there isn't much trouble and you're still looking, you often find it even when it's not there.



My dealings with police.



Tickets, speeding and also parking, some of which are straight predatory, a few were also just a oops on my end (nothing crazy though)



Break in to my house, police did nothing, didn't even try, no fingerprint checking, just here's a report, which would have been handy if they stole my toilet paper too and I needing something worthless to wipe with.



Hit and run on my car, same deal more or less. No report but they said they would investigate it, I ended up having to call them and see what work they did, said they didn't have any leads and shut the case, or something to that effect. I phoned up a couple shops in the area to ask if any police had asked if they had any cameras looking towards where my car was hit...they said no police ever spoke with them.





So, frankly outside of when police are just trying to generate revenue, in my law abiding life they have proven themselves nearly worthless outside from directing traffic at accidents, which is also often done my volunteer citizens on patrol types.


Sounds exactly like my experience with the police. Other than minor traffic "harassment/ blatant revenue generation" there have been no "positive" interactions with police. When I've needed them to file a report on some vandalism, etc, they don't show up for hours, and like you said, when the finally do, they really don't do anything beyond filling out the paperwork.

Let me tell you, the next time the "more money/taxes to fund law enforcement" issue comes up, I vote "hell no". Stop harassing ordinary citizens and solve some crimes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I had forgotten about CBP tracking and stopping planes inside the US:

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/28/31631...ts-complain-customs-rethinks-intercept-policy

AOPA got involved with it. I can't remember if the Kings had anything to do with this or if that was a totally different deal.

The Kings' detention was unrelated; it had to do with some government agency relying on out-of-date records on the N-number. However, it could be considered related from the point of view of its being an example of sloppy work in determining who is suspicious.
 
Last edited:
"Suspicious flight pattern" almost implies to me that they had been tracking him for a while and were using that as a part of the excuse to stop him but it was not strong enough to be considered probable cause.

So why is stopping early or changing destinations on a flight plan considered suspicious? Should we all add this to the list of things we don't want to do when flying, right beside flying west to east?

Seems to me that would be a non-suspicious thing to do. If I had drugs, I would need to deliver them to where they need to go, not hold them in a crowded airport ramp overnight.
 
I think a lot of non-aviation people have no clue about what's suspicious in aviation and what isn't.
 
Don't let evil people dictate how you live your life, fly just as you would, as long as you're no busting the law, FARs, or hurting folks it's no one business.

If you do get stopped video tape everything and hope their antics make them go viral.


image.jpg
 
If they would track my flights I they would for sure think I'm flying drunk, ha
 
...Point of origin was the key...

That doesn't make any sense. They can't possibly be searching every aircraft that departs certain points of origin. There has to be something else involved in deciding whom to detain.
 
How do they establish chain of custody? I hope the ramp video cameras (if any?) have continuous video feed of the plane from when he landed till they searched and found the drugs.

If it was behind a bulkhead or in the wings or something, then it would be even harder to prove that he knew it was on board.

"You know, I thought I wasn't getting very good cruise speed... That's why I landed to get more fuel. 30lbs of overweight might do that."

A lot of planes are stored on the ramp at uncontrolled fields. It's not like it's hard to break into a plane or anything. Someone could put anything in there.

My guess is they were looking for the guy....
 
I tried to find info on the original arrest, but couldn't find anything. I couldn't find anything on his plea either.
 
Not sure why a diversion constitutes suspicious behavior. If I'm flying and I'm tired, I'm going to land and rest.

Are they saying the diversion would be suspicious but if I filed to fly there in the first place, that would be just normal?

I agree 100 %. If you are moving dope around the country I don't see how changing destinations makes it suspicious. Has to be more to this story. I am going with they were watching him or the departure airport. The fact that he was a new pilot makes me think this was his primary reason. Not smart..
 
Small planes from Northern California and known points on the border

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Triangle

I've flown into and out of the "Emerald Triangle" many times in the past quarter century, and no one has said boo. They can't possibly have the resources to intercept more than a small fraction of the aircraft departing from there, so there have to be some other factors involved. Besides, there are these things called cars and trucks, and well-traveled highways through there.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they had to have been on to him beforehand. They are just using change in flight plan as a cover story to protect their sources. I can't figure out why even he filed a flight plan to begin with. You would think he would fly in and out of grass strips well outside of any controlled airspace sans transponder. But what do I know about being a drug mule?
 
Last edited:
Actually, it doesn't take "probable cause" to seize, only an articulable and reasonable suspicion. As it pointed out he was held at the hotel based on his suspicious behavior, they already had also determined the plane to be suspicious and as the decision points out they were well within their rights to hold the aircraft even if the pilot had not been held.

Terry pretty much decided this is within the limits of the fourth amendment. As for the actual search, even though the decision indicates it would have likely been considered permissible without a warrant, they did get a warrant prior to the search. The quibbling was whether the FBI had the right to detain the pilot/aircraft while the warrant was being retrieved. The answer to that wasn't even close in this case, they can. This appeal was pretty much wishful thinking.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have a feeling that he would have avoided all this turmoil if he had simply decided NOT to transport 30lbs of marijuana in his plane.

The dude knows he's guilty, he's just some idiot trying to get off with a technicality.
 
Not sure why a diversion constitutes suspicious behavior. If I'm flying and I'm tired, I'm going to land and rest.

Are they saying the diversion would be suspicious but if I filed to fly there in the first place, that would be just normal?

I guess. Flew to Austin from El Paso 2 weeks ago and changed destination from Llano to Austin Exec (didn't need any fuel as I had a 50 knot tailwind). I made sure to inform of the destination change with one of the slower sectors prior to Austin. They asked for an explanation also even though it was FF and not IFR flight plan.
 
I guess. Flew to Austin from El Paso 2 weeks ago and changed destination from Llano to Austin Exec (didn't need any fuel as I had a 50 knot tailwind). I made sure to inform of the destination change with one of the slower sectors prior to Austin. They asked for an explanation also even though it was FF and not IFR flight plan.

Hey, small world. I was in El Paso just two weeks ago! On the way back, we too planned a fuel stop in Llano but made it all the way to Austin (we saw GS 170-180kts most of the way, it was awesome).

Btw, SOP for controllers today is to ask for reason for diversion no matter what plan you're on.
 
I am going with they were watching him or the departure airport.

I know back in the 70s they would slapped a small transponder onto a suspected plane and track it. Forget the code. Saw it a few times when I was a controller as we usually had to monitor it while in our airspace. Once a DEA bird was trailing 20 miles or so behind.

Now, looking out my window, what's that black Suburban doing parked in the street....:confused::eek:
 
Last edited:
The current SOP for controllers is to ask anytime you divert.

My instinct is to tell them it's none of their business, as "why" I want to go (or don't want to go) somewhere is not something I'm required to disclose in order to exercise my pilot's license. However, if I respond in this manner I understand that an undesirable reaction may ensue. :yikes:

So my question: is there a published regulatory requirement that instructs a pilots to answer this question?
 
Last edited:
Can you just say, "we've had a change in plans"?
 
FWIW, I took a look at the Appellant's brief; it's not very good and makes literally no argument regarding the flight plan diversion not being "suspicious." He had an appointed criminal defense lawyer that likely knew nothing at all about aviation.
 
My instinct is to tell them it's none of their business, as "why" I want to go (or don't want to go) somewhere is not something I'm required to disclose in order to exercise my pilot's license. However, if I respond in this manner I understand that an undesirable reaction may ensue. :yikes:

So my question: is there a published regulatory requirement that instructs a pilots to answer this question?

No, but that question is often followed by "Do you need assistance?" which exposes the real and not very entertaining reason behind the request.
 
My instinct is to tell them it's none of their business, as "why" I want to go (or don't want to go) somewhere is not something I'm required to disclose in order to exercise my pilot's license. However, if I respond in this manner I understand that an undesirable reaction may ensue. :yikes:

So my question: is there a published regulatory requirement that instructs a pilots to answer this question?

I don't see any reason to let it rub you the wrong way. Just tell them the truth. If you don't want to get into a lot of detail, just say you had a change in plans.
 
"Booty call" is a good answer. I'll use that from now on...
 
"Passenger comfort."

+1, I've used that many times, haven't gotten any pushback at all. Controllers understand about airsickness and full bladders, I'm sure they hear that a lot.
 
The official Bonanza pilot's response to an ATC query about a destination change is "Unscheduled Booty Call"
 
"Passenger comfort."


I once told Denver Center we needed a "bio-break".

They sounded perplexed and asked again, so I just told them flat out that my wife needed to pee on a relatively busy frequency.

I'd already had enough of twenty questions at question number two.

Should stick to controlling all this traffic that's now waiting for that primary service on this stupid unnecessary conversation, and don't be worrying about grilling a freaking 182 diverting on VFR Flight Following for fffff's sake.

I'm pretty sure I can't pack enough explosives and accelerants in the cabin of a 182 to do much more than blow the windows out of the FBO in Alamosa, which is where I said I was diverting to, and there isn't anything else there worth worrying about.

Security theater. Nobody intent on harm is going to ask for a diversion. Stupid.
 
I don't see any reason to let it rub you the wrong way.

With all due respect, when I encounter this attitude I’m always bewildered. If a government representative wants to search your person or property without due process (i.e., a warrant), which would be a violation of your Constitutional Rights, would your reaction be…”why protest if you have nothing to hide”?

As far back as 1823 the U.S. Supreme Court recognized Freedom of Movement as a fundamental Constitutional Right under Article IV of the Constitution. The Right of Freedom of Movement means, among other things, that we are not required to get permission from any government body to lawfully travel, and we certainly are not required to provide a reason to any government body as to why we are going where we’re going. Constitutionally, it’s none of the government’s business. Consistent with these established Rights, when we file a VFR/IFR flight plan we are not required to provide a reason why we’re flying to a particular destination. ATC/FAA has a valid and lawful reason to know where we’re going so they can integrate us into the system and provide services. But they don’t have a lawful reason to know why. So I ask again, what authority does ATC/FAA have to ask why we want to make an enroute change to an IFR flight plan? And even worse, what authority do they have to bring punitive actions against pilots who stand up for their Rights and choose not to provide this information?

Not sure as to the accuracy but I have read elsewhere that this practice was instituted after 911 as part of a set of NON-PUBLISHED security regulations. SECRET LAWS that you and I are required to follow and abide by. If true, such precedents would be extremely troubling.
 
With all due respect, when I encounter this attitude I’m always bewildered. If a government representative wants to search your person or property without due process (i.e., a warrant), which would be a violation of your Constitutional Rights, would your reaction be…”why protest if you have nothing to hide”?

As far back as 1823 the U.S. Supreme Court recognized Freedom of Movement as a fundamental Constitutional Right under Article IV of the Constitution. The Right of Freedom of Movement means, among other things, that we are not required to get permission from any government body to lawfully travel, and we certainly are not required to provide a reason to any government body as to why we are going where we’re going. Constitutionally, it’s none of the government’s business. Consistent with these established Rights, when we file a VFR/IFR flight plan we are not required to provide a reason why we’re flying to a particular destination. ATC/FAA has a valid and lawful reason to know where we’re going so they can integrate us into the system and provide services. But they don’t have a lawful reason to know why. So I ask again, what authority does ATC/FAA have to ask why we want to make an enroute change to an IFR flight plan? And even worse, what authority do they have to bring punitive actions against pilots who stand up for their Rights and choose not to provide this information?

Not sure as to the accuracy but I have read elsewhere that this practice was instituted after 911 as part of a set of NON-PUBLISHED security regulations. SECRET LAWS that you and I are required to follow and abide by. If true, such precedents would be extremely troubling.

:yeahthat:
 
With all due respect, when I encounter this attitude I’m always bewildered. If a government representative wants to search your person or property without due process (i.e., a warrant), which would be a violation of your Constitutional Rights, would your reaction be…”why protest if you have nothing to hide”?

As far back as 1823 the U.S. Supreme Court recognized Freedom of Movement as a fundamental Constitutional Right under Article IV of the Constitution. The Right of Freedom of Movement means, among other things, that we are not required to get permission from any government body to lawfully travel, and we certainly are not required to provide a reason to any government body as to why we are going where we’re going. Constitutionally, it’s none of the government’s business. Consistent with these established Rights, when we file a VFR/IFR flight plan we are not required to provide a reason why we’re flying to a particular destination. ATC/FAA has a valid and lawful reason to know where we’re going so they can integrate us into the system and provide services. But they don’t have a lawful reason to know why. So I ask again, what authority does ATC/FAA have to ask why we want to make an enroute change to an IFR flight plan? And even worse, what authority do they have to bring punitive actions against pilots who stand up for their Rights and choose not to provide this information?

Not sure as to the accuracy but I have read elsewhere that this practice was instituted after 911 as part of a set of NON-PUBLISHED security regulations. SECRET LAWS that you and I are required to follow and abide by. If true, such precedents would be extremely troubling.

I'm not arguing with this point. I just don't see their asking for a reason for the deviation being a concern. Either tell them or just say something basic. The question in itself doesn't bother me because they may want to know if their is an underlying concern you may have. If I had to fill out paperwork or prove "no wrong doing with my actions", I'd feel differently about it.
 
I've seen that... if it was up to me the k9 handler would be serving 10 years in a federal prison. Or maybe death by firing squad. Nothing is lower than a crooked cop.
You haven't looked at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or K Street have you?
 
No, but that question is often followed by "Do you need assistance?" which exposes the real and not very entertaining reason behind the request.
Only if ATC is requesting the final shake of dew from my lilly.
 
Back
Top