Martha Lunken - Bridges - Log Book Hours?

Salty said:
That’s right.

I don’t understand the point of revocation if you can just get a new cert. how is getting the cert again doing anything to change her behavior?

again, if it’s not meant to be permanent, then why not just suspend?

it doesn’t really matter, as it is what it is, it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Click to expand...
How does any punishment ever change behavior?
 
Lindberg said:
How does any punishment ever change behavior?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue the effectiveness of punishment, but a permanent revocation changes behavior far more. If it were permanent and she flew again she'd be performing criminal behavior just flying at all,

Again, if you let her get her certs back, how is that any different than a suspension and 709?
 
Salty said:
I'm not going to argue the effectiveness of punishment, but a permanent revocation changes behavior far more. If it were permanent and she flew again she'd be performing criminal behavior just flying at all,

Again, if you let her get her certs back, how is that any different than a suspension and 709?
Click to expand...

Suspension doesn't require any additional training or even a checkride. It's just don't exercise your certificate for xxx amount of time.

Hard to do a 44709 evaluation on her event(s) that led up to revocation. A 44709 has to be specific in the areas that need to be evaluated, and those areas are pulled from the ACS and PTS. Looking at those documents, and her ratings, what would you determine to be the areas that need re-examination?

Also, as always, there are many parts to the story that's unknown here. And those missing parts are what more than likely led to the revocation.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Suspension doesn't require any additional training or even a checkride. It's just don't exercise your certificate for xxx amount of time.

Hard to do a 44709 evaluation on her event(s) that led up to revocation. A 44709 has to be specific in the areas that need to be evaluated, and those areas are pulled from the ACS and PTS. Looking at those documents, and her ratings, what would you determine to be the areas that need re-examination?

Also, as always, there are many parts to the story that's unknown here. And those missing parts are what more than likely led to the revocation.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. But, I don’t see how anybody would think redoing the training is going to teach her anything she doesn’t already know. Unless it’s just punitive, put her in her place punishment by humiliation. :shrug:
 
Salty said:
Makes sense. But, I don’t see how anybody would think redoing the training is going to teach her anything she doesn’t already know. Unless it’s just punitive, put her in her place punishment by humiliation. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Revocation is not about re-doing training. If that were the case, she would have been given a Compliance Action/ Re-training and assigned areas that she would need retrained in and signed off by a CFI.

Like I said, this is an iceberg, we only see a very small portion of the events and story. There is far more to this than what is being reported, which is the case in the majority of these events.
 
Doc Holliday said:
There is far more to this than what is being reported, which is the case in the majority of these events.
Click to expand...

One might ask if that is a good thing? One of the big differences between a regulatory and court proceeding.

Court actions are generally public, more expensive, more accurate, and possibly more permanent.

Regulatory actions can be less public, less expensive, less accurate, and less permanent.

Just one way to think about it.
 
Salty said:
That’s right.

I don’t understand the point of revocation if you can just get a new cert. how is getting the cert again doing anything to change her behavior?

again, if it’s not meant to be permanent, then why not just suspend?

it doesn’t really matter, as it is what it is, it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I can certainly see how it would change behavior. It’s a much larger deterrent knowing you’ll have to go through recertification, vs just taking a year off.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
One might ask if that is a good thing? One of the big differences between a regulatory and court proceeding.

Court actions are generally public, more expensive, more accurate, and possibly more permanent.

Regulatory actions can be less public, less expensive, less accurate, and less permanent.

Just one way to think about it.
Click to expand...

This hasn't gone to court. AFAIK she hasn't even appealed to the NTSB for a hearing.
 
I don’t know what is stranger: that a Flying luminary would have all their ratings stripped for a little tomfoolery, or that a 78 year old woman decided to fly under a bridge. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
She had turned off her ADSB prior to flying under the bridge. That, is the reason for the quick and harsh punishment.
 
^ That. The FAA Compliance and Enforcement document 2150.3C spells it out. In the eyes of the FAA the turning off the ADS-B is grounds for revocation but that it happened in synch with an illegal stunt establishes intent, and with that their path was determined. Pilots should read part 9 of 2150.3C.
 
If the FAA's intent was to make some other pilots aware of and maybe instill fear into the consequences for turning off ADSB - they probably succeeded. Does this punishment fit the crime? Each can have their own opinion.

FWIW - I'm glad she has a path forward to getting a PPL back to fly around.
 
Lindberg said:
How does any punishment ever change behavior?
Click to expand...

The death penalty comes to mind.....

I will point out that #9 is intent to deceive and and # 30 is purpose of evading.
That was Martha's "crime".
We have a local who flew under the Poughkeepsie Bridge a number of times. No ads-b was involved, and since they only had one photo of one incident, he got off with a suspension.
Slightly off topic, but some have implied it here and other boards. I don't see that it's illegal to turn off ads-b.
Can someone show me where it says, specifically, that it's illegal to switch off ads-b? I can't find it.
 
I guess you can't turn it off if you're in Class A, B, C, E above 10,000, or in Mode C Veil in Class B. So if it is legal to turn it off outside of those areas, it is illegal to have it off if you do something the FAA doesn't like. Catch 22 ?


BTW - I've heard that the FAA is issuing an enforcement action against the ISS. They don't have ADSB, and they are in E airspace above 10,000 feet.
 
Shepherd said:
The death penalty comes to mind.....

I will point out that #9 is intent to deceive and and # 30 is purpose of evading.
That was Martha's "crime".
We have a local who flew under the Poughkeepsie Bridge a number of times. No ads-b was involved, and since they only had one photo of one incident, he got off with a suspension.
Slightly off topic, but some have implied it here and other boards. I don't see that it's illegal to turn off ads-b.
Can someone show me where it says, specifically, that it's illegal to switch off ads-b? I can't find it.
Click to expand...

CFR14-91.225 para f-
(f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -

(1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or

(2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.


Put that in context of line 30 from page 9-14 in FAA order 2150.3C and you're subject to certificate revocation even without doing any cowboy stunts.

4fa5a0bb-c3a8-407b-bb97-20f7a7580124-png.96041
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
How does any punishment ever change behavior?
Click to expand...
Do you think she's going to do it again, after she earns back her certificates? I would also argue that it changes other people's behavior who might exercise better impulse control because they don't want to pay the price.
 
Everskyward said:
Do you think she's going to do it again, after she earns back her certificates? I would also argue that it changes other people's behavior who might exercise better impulse control because they don't want to pay the price.
Click to expand...

And she'll likely have to endure the "What the HELL were you thinking" speech from every CFI and DPE along the way. If that doesn't make you humble, nothing will.
 
Bill said:
And she'll likely have to endure the "What the HELL were you thinking" speech from every CFI and DPE along the way. If that doesn't make you humble, nothing will.
Click to expand...
Some people... I know a fellow that had a revocation and is currently repeating the same mistakes that lead to the revocation. It will very likely end up bad for him. I can’t watch it happen a second time.
 
WDD said:
I guess you can't turn it off if you're in Class A, B, C, E above 10,000, or in Mode C Veil in Class B. So if it is legal to turn it off outside of those areas, it is illegal to have it off if you do something the FAA doesn't like. Catch 22 ?


BTW - I've heard that the FAA is issuing an enforcement action against the ISS. They don't have ADSB, and they are in E airspace above 10,000 feet.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Once equipped, the airspace you're in is not relevant.
 
Salty said:
Incorrect. Once equipped, the airspace you're in is not relevant.
Click to expand...
Unlike a transponder? I’ve not heard that angle before. What leads you to say that ? FWIW / I don’t understand why anyone would turn it off. If nothing else there’s a LOT of traffic that I want to see and be seen in.

Isn’t there a provision to make your ADSB anonymous ? That doesn’t make sense to me either.
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
And she'll likely have to endure the "What the HELL were you thinking" speech from every CFI and DPE along the way. If that doesn't make you humble, nothing will.
Click to expand...
But since the pilot community is small, you don't think she will just have multiple friends that are CFIs that would happily sign her off and plenty of DPEs who she knows that will just rubber stamp her new certificate? Kinda like many BFE and even FAA required retraining events. I was present when someone I know had their friend over for a hangar lunch and they did his FAA required airspace re-training after a class B bust. It certainly was nothing more than a relaxed lunch with barely a few comments about current airspace requirements. Certainly not a complete course of training.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
But since the pilot community is small, you don't think she will just have multiple friends that are CFIs that would happily sign her off and plenty of DPEs who she knows that will just rubber stamp her new certificate?
Click to expand...

I think the opposite, I think every step of her retraining and check rides will be looked at through a microscope.
 
Bill said:
I think the opposite, I think every step of her retraining and check rides will be looked at through a microscope.
Click to expand...
One would hope, but that is not how the world usually works. It is rarely about what you can do, more about who you know. We would have to hope that the local FSDO will be riding along with the DPE on each of her checkrides. At least then she would have to fake a compliant personality.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
One would hope, but that is not how the world usually works. It is rarely about what you can do, more about who you know. We would have to hope that the local FSDO will be riding along with the DPE on each of her checkrides. At least then she would have to fake a compliant personality.
Click to expand...
Regardless of how any individual cfi or dpe feels about her they all know they earn a living in the sky at the sole discretion of the same people that took her certificates…

In general I agree with what you are saying because I have seen it play out that way as well but there is a difference between a 709 ride and a revocation. When the revocation hammer drops friends are hard to find.
 
WDD said:
Unlike a transponder? I’ve not heard that angle before. What leads you to say that ? FWIW / I don’t understand why anyone would turn it off. If nothing else there’s a LOT of traffic that I want to see and be seen in.

Isn’t there a provision to make your AFSB anonymous ? That doesn’t make sense to me either.
Click to expand...

Dunno. Anynomous makes sense to me. I don't drive my car around broadcasting to the world my name and address linked to a real time and permanently archived record of my speed, vehicle description, and GPS location.

Anonymous only creates a random ID to delink the owner's identity from the other position data that is still broadcasted - and visible to all other traffic and ATC. If this is truly a traffic safety system, that's all that matters.

I guess it was her version of premptively pleading the 5th, so there wouldn't be a publically accessable GPS and altitude fix with her name attached to it -- under the bridge. :confused:
 
Everskyward said:
Do you think she's going to do it again, after she earns back her certificates? I would also argue that it changes other people's behavior who might exercise better impulse control because they don't want to pay the price.
Click to expand...
I agree. And that's the answer to @Salty 's question:

how is getting the cert again doing anything to change her behavior?
Click to expand...
 
Anonymous mode is available for the 978 units and I'm not sure how those work. I have a 1090 ES transponder that I can select ADS-B on or off, but no anonymous mode. Even with an FAA identity block several ADS-B tracking websites will provide my airplane flight path and identity to anyone who looks it up. The government requires that since I have it I must use it even though I never fly in rule airspace, and at the same time they can't protect my identity. Like lots of things we can think of in government ADS-B is wonderful technology very poorly administered. Some guys may find it simple to remove their equipment. That's a perfectly legal way out of the trap. Mine is anything but simple to remove. I've written my congressman and senators asking them to work to remove the requirement for ADS-B to be used outside of rule airspace but that's like talking economics to a 2 year old. Very frustrating. The Lunkin case will make any rule relaxation even more difficult than it would have been already.

If a guy legally removes ADS-B and properly logs it, then gets a flight violation, does anyone think the FAA will consider the equipment removal as indication of intent? I'd count on it.
 
Stewartb said:
Anonymous mode is available for the 978 units and I'm not sure how those work.
Click to expand...

From the source: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 20-165A.pdf


Anonymity feature. 14 CFR 91.227 contains specific provisions allowing operators with TSO-C154c equipment to transmit a self-assigned (randomized) temporary 24-bit address and no call sign. No such provision is provided for TSO-C166b equipment. After January 1, 2020 and in the airspace identified in 14 CFR 91.225, the UAT anonymous 24-bit address feature may only be used when the operator has not filed a flight plan and is not requesting ATC services. The UAT call sign may also be omitted, but only when the anonymous 24-bit address is chosen. We do not recommend integrating the anonymity features, as the operator will not be eligible to receive ATC services, may not be able to benefit from enhanced ADS-B search and rescue capabilities, and may impact ADS-B IN situational awareness benefits. The following considerations must be included in the ADS-B system design when installing equipment capable of utilizing the anonymity feature:

(a) When the ADS-B equipment is initially powered-on, the 24-bit address must default tohe aircraft’s assigned ICAO 24-bit address.

(b) When the ADS-B equipment is initially powered-on, the call sign may not be blank (Not Available per DO-282()). At initial power-on it is acceptable for the call sign to revert to a non-blank call sign which existed prior to the ADS-B equipment being powered off, or to the aircraft registration number.

(c) The ADS-B equipment can only allow an anonymous 24-bit address selection if the Mode 3/A code is set to 1200.

(d) The ADS-B equipment may only allow selection of the anonymous 24-bit address via a dedicated pilot interface. The ADS-B OUT equipment may not automatically set an anonymous 24-bit address or set a blank (Not Available per DO-282()) call sign based solely on pilot selection of the 1200 Mode 3/A code.

(e) The ADS-B OUT equipment must automatically disable the anonymity feature if any Mode 3/A code other than 1200 is selected. The 24-bit address must automatically revert to the aircraft’s assigned ICAO 24-bit address. If the call sign was blank, the call sign must automatically revert to the aircraft registration number. (f) Describe the ramifications of selecting the anonymity features in the flight manual or Pilot’s Guide. Ramifications include the inability to receive Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) or Visual Flight Rule (VFR) separation services, potential loss of enhanced search and rescue benefits, and potential negative impacts to ADS-B IN applications.​
 
If set up properly, punching in 1200 on the transponder automatically switches the ADSB-out to anonymous, without any other action from the pilot.

Plane then presents all position and speed data without the ICAO/N-number.

If you run in the ATC system, as soon as an issued squawk code is entered, it reverts to normal.
 
We as a society do not care if punishment fixes behavior. Jail does not solve drug addiction but we lock up addicts everyday.
 
I wonder if she will use a CFI that she signed off...
 
I would just assume the DPE evaluates her per the ACS rather than media reports. I can't imagine she has much problems passing.
 
People are saying that the reason she got a revocation was because she turned off ADS-B in an effort to evade detection. This leads me to wonder: Would she really have gotten a lighter punishment if she had left it on? Maye a suspension instead?
 
Palmpilot said:
Maye a suspension instead
Click to expand...

I wish that were the case. Then it would be even more funny to call it a...................

............... hang on ................

............... suspension bridge!!!!!
 
Palmpilot said:
People are saying that the reason she got a revocation was because she turned off ADS-B in an effort to evade detection. This leads me to wonder: Would she really have gotten a lighter punishment if she had left it on? Maye a suspension instead?
Click to expand...

Perhaps those "people" are speculating by using a sliver of known information of what actually transpired. Again, all anyone has actually seen or read are articles with an obvious slant. To my knowledge nothing factual has been posted.
 
Is anonymous mode kind of like our company’s recent internal survey? It was anonymous, but they were tracking who did and didn’t complete it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top