Darwin award wanna-be prangs plane with no certificate

alaskaflyer

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
7,544
Location
Smith Valley, Nevada
Display Name

Display name:
Alaskaflyer
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/779593.html
An ill-fated aerial water-skiing performance on the Knik River drainage last weekend ended abruptly when the aircraft smacked face down in the mud, damaging the plane and placing the unlicensed pilot under the scrutiny of federal aviation officials.
And the true genius of it:

After Stoltenberg's plane went down, a witness came over to see if he was OK. In response, Stoltenberg said, "Don't call the cops," according to the report. A group of Stoltenberg's friends soon showed up and turned the aircraft right-side-up with an all-terrain vehicle, then towed it to trees and brush to try hiding it, the report says.He later returned to fly his father's battered plane home from the crash site about six miles south of Palmer, the report says. "That's another interesting little twist," Johnson said. "He basically flew a bent airplane home."
This is no bush location in the untrodden wilds. This area is relatively accessible.

I'd really like to see certificate action against the father. Maybe I'm not Alaskan enough?
 
Last edited:
i thought certificates were optional up there?
 
I'd really like to see certificate action against the father.
Not much they can do to the father unless they can prove he was in the airplane, too. Fines (actually, a "civil penalty") and injunctions are the normal way the FAA handles folks who break the rules but don't have certificates to suspend or revoke. Fail to pay the penalty, and the US Marshals come out to take any planes they own or other property to cover the debt. Break the injunction, and a Federal judge can put the violator in jail until s/he convinces the judge s/he won't do it again.
 
Not much they can do to the father unless they can prove he was in the airplane, too. Fines (actually, a "civil penalty") and injunctions are the normal way the FAA handles folks who break the rules but don't have certificates to suspend or revoke. Fail to pay the penalty, and the US Marshals come out to take any planes they own or other property to cover the debt. Break the injunction, and a Federal judge can put the violator in jail until s/he convinces the judge s/he won't do it again.

Isn't there a criminal sanction for lying to Federal authorities?

adn.com said:
Stoltenberg told the NTSB that the accident took place after he had successfully landed on the mudflats. He said he was a student pilot with a required medical certificate, and that as he was turning the aircraft to taxi, a gust of wind lifted its tail and caused it to nose over, according to the report
 
Isn't there a criminal sanction for lying to Federal authorities?

Yeah, try getting a judge to sign off on it. It would have to be a pretty serious crime and your lie had to bring about major damages before something like this would make the docket.
 
But Stoltenberg had neither a current medical certificate nor a student pilot's certificate, the report said. The FAA administratively denied Stoltenberg's third-class medical certificate on Aug. 1, 2008, because of three driving under the influence convictions he had racked up inside 10 years, the report says. On Aug. 30 that year, he was charged with a fourth, felony DUI.
No evidence that alcohol was involved in this incident, but I wouldn't bet against it. Or maybe it was just a case of "hey, watch this!"
 
Certificate action based on what?
You think he stole it?

How about a certificated pilot knowingly allowing a non-certificated pilot who did not possess a valid medical to fly his registered airplane on multiple occasions.
 
Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/may/01/federal-officials-investigate-unlicensed-alaska-pi/

Federal officials investigate unlicensed Alaska pilot

The Associated Press
Published Friday, May 1, 2009



ANCHORAGE, Alaska - An unlicensed pilot "water-skied" the surface of Knik River drainage with his father's airplane, ended up nose-down on a sandbar, and then flew the damaged craft home, according to federal investigators.
Aviation officials say the incident could result in fines.
The Piper PA-18-135, piloted by Edwin A. Stoltenberg, 26, was seen repeatedly swooping down to the water and skimming the surface with its wheels, trying to "water ski" across it, according to a National Transportation Safety Board report released Thursday.
The aircraft's tires grazed the water smoothly for several hundred feet on a handful of touch-and-goes but then caught on a sandbar, sending the plane's nose into shallow water at about 4:30 p.m. Saturday, the report said.
The airplane sustained damage to its left wing lift strut, fuselage and rudder.
"There was obviously no injuries or anything, so it was a pretty minor accident," said NTSB investigator Clint Johnson. "But once we got into it, it was just like, 'Holy smokes!'"
"Water-skiing" with an airplane is not encouraged, said Howard Martin, regional counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration. It was developed for landing in tight quarters, such as sand bars, he said, but doing it wrong can be disastrous.
"This isn't a real normal procedure for landing," Martin said. "There's a few people that's developed this, and he may have well been trying to show the skill off to people out there when it happened."
When Stoltenberg's plane went down, a witness came over to see if he was OK. Stoltenberg told the witness, "Don't call the cops," according to the report.
Friends of Stoltenberg showed up and turned the aircraft right-side-up with an all-terrain vehicle, then towed it to trees and brush to hide it, the report said.
No one was around when Alaska State Troopers arrived.
However Stoltenberg later returned and flew the battered plane home from the crash site about six miles south of Palmer, the report said.
"That's another interesting little twist," Johnson said. "He basically flew a bent airplane home."
Stoltenberg told the NTSB that the accident took place after he had successfully landed on the mud flats. He said he was a student pilot with a required medical certificate, and that as he was turning the aircraft to taxi, a gust of wind lifted its tail and caused it to nose over, according to the report.
However, Stoltenberg has neither a current medical certificate nor a student pilot's certificate, the report said. The FAA administratively denied Stoltenberg's third-class medical certificate on Aug. 1 because of three driving-under-the-influence convictions in 10 years, the report said. On Aug. 30. he was charged with a fourth, felony DUI.
There was no indication that alcohol was a factor in the plane episode, officials said.
The FAA is investigating a number of regulatory violations, including the lack of a pilot's certificate, Martin said.
"Normally we would either revoke or suspend that," he said. "But when someone doesn't have certificates, we've got a couple options. One is we do a fine action against him."
Officials also could get an injunction to keep Stoltenberg from flying, he said.



I really like the first comment someone left:
"There was no indication that alcohol was a factor in the plane episode, officials said."

There was not indication intelligence was a factor either.

"Don't call the cops", I can imagine this is a phrase he uses fairly often...
 
You think he stole it?

How about a certificated pilot knowingly allowing a non-certificated pilot who did not possess a valid medical to fly his registered airplane on multiple occasions.

Please reference a law or regulation that he violated?
 
You think he stole it?

How about a certificated pilot knowingly allowing a non-certificated pilot who did not possess a valid medical to fly his registered airplane on multiple occasions.

What FAR would that violate?
 
Could 91.13(b) be stretched to fit?

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Could the FAA consider the owner in the role of "operator" even though he was not in actual control?
 
Re: Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

An unlicensed pilot in Alaska. I'm shocked! Really shocked!

Joe
 
Re: Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

An unlicensed pilot in Alaska. I'm shocked! Really shocked!

Joe


It's not just alaska either. I've met more than I care to count. I've met them with no certificate, no medical, and no both. Sadly, it's not as rare as one might think or hope.
 
Could 91.13(b) be stretched to fit?


Could the FAA consider the owner in the role of "operator" even though he was not in actual control?

Not for the purposes of 91.13.
 
Last edited:
Re: Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

It's not just alaska either. I've met more than I care to count. I've met them with no certificate, no medical, and no both. Sadly, it's not as rare as one might think or hope.
I've met more than a few myself in my relatively short time in aviation- mostly in the guise of ultralight and experimental pilots, but I've seen a couple of idiots who co-own a Cessna and flew it quite regularly until someone turned them in.

That said, I've also seen more than a few in the course of my research who paid a really high price for their brazen stupidity. Sadly, more than one of them took friends and/or family with them.....
 
Re: Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

It's about insurance, guys. It's about insurance. Anybody can fly, you don't need a medical nor a License. You just need an airplane.

It's about insurance.
 
Re: Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

It's about insurance, guys. It's about insurance. Anybody can fly, you don't need a medical nor a License. You just need an airplane.

It's about insurance.

Most people here don't have insurance either. Hell, even many of the "bush" / float flight schools don't.
 
Could 91.13(b) be stretched to fit?

A simple reading of the reg says no:

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
 
I'd also say it "appears" to say "No." However, I imagine the FAA has this uncanny ability to make things fit when they so desire.
 
Re: Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

It's not just alaska either. I've met more than I care to count. I've met them with no certificate, no medical, and no both. Sadly, it's not as rare as one might think or hope.
It's not just unlicensed pilots, it is unlicensed drivers. I'd believe just about anyone who loses his license continues to drive. Hell, this boy had 4 DUIs. Doesn't seem to stop him from doing what he wants.
 
Re: Unlicensed Pilot in Alaska

It's not just unlicensed pilots, it is unlicensed drivers. I'd believe just about anyone who loses his license continues to drive. Hell, this boy had 4 DUIs. Doesn't seem to stop him from doing what he wants.

An immovable mass will, one day. And I'm not talking about the government ;)
 
Please reference a law or regulation that he violated?

91.13(a): No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

To "operate" an aircraft does not mean FLY. If the father knowingly lent or allowed his aircraft to be used by an uncertificated "pilot" he was "operating" an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner...

GW
 
91.13(a): No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

To "operate" an aircraft does not mean FLY. If the father knowingly lent or allowed his aircraft to be used by an uncertificated "pilot" he was "operating" an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner...

GW
That was my thinking. We'll see. Some underestimate the FAA's ability to stretch a rule to meet their desires.
 
"Officials could also get an injunction to keep Stoltenberg from flying."

Oh, I'm sure an injunction will stop him. :nonod:
 
Back
Top