Does This Helo Pilot have "Nine Certificates"?

K

KennyFlys

Guest
[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva]How many times will this guy get a shot at keeping his ticket?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva]Pilot's Certificate Revoked (Again), This Time For In-Cockpit Sex[/FONT]

David Keith Martz, 52, has appealed the revocation of his certificate, which he lost after a video surfaced that allegedly shows him having sex with a Swedish adult film actress while flying a helicopter over San Diego. The revocation marks the fifth time Martz' license has either been revoked or suspended, according to the Associated Press, which noted a prior infraction that the FAA deemed as reckless flying. In that 2006 case, "reckless" meant landing a helicopter on a Hollywood street to pick up a rock star and deliver him to a concert. Other incidents include flying too low over a residential neighborhood, landing too close to a military base, and flying with damage to his helicopter. A public hearing will be held in San Diego sometime within the next month. According to the L.A. Times, "it is unclear if the video will be shown."

The 2007 video that became public when it was posted online by a Hollywood gossip web site, last month. After reviewing the video, the FAA claims is shows the pilot was blocked from the helicopter's controls by the woman's body.
Click to expand...
 
this thread is useless without video links...
 
Ohhhh ... mmmm .. uh oh ... so ... it's against the law to have sexual
activity in an aircraft? :-(
 
To answer the actual question, there's no specific limit. There are several cases on record of an airman's certificate being revoked for a second time. In fact, the regulations allow a pilot to apply for a new certificate once a year has passed after the revocation (61.13(d)(2)). Normally, the FAA is required to issue a certificate to anyone who passes the requisite tests and has the requisite experience (revocation does not "zero-time" your pilot logbook) (61.13(a)(3)). However, there is a clause (61.13(a)(2)(ii)) which allows the Administrator to refuse to issue a certificate, and that clause does not specify the grounds under which that authority may be exercised.

I suppose, based on Administrator v. Merrell, that the Administrator must be able to show cause to refuse issuance, and that this power may not be exercised in an "arbitrary or capricious manner." I believe that Hayden "Jim" Shaeffer, the "Smoketown Bandit" whose pilot certificate was revoked for flying a C-152 through the FRZ a couple of years ago, made some noises about reapplying a year after the revocation, and was told that this clause would be invoked if he tried to apply again, so he shouldn't bother trying. That said, I've seen no cases on record where this issue was raised, disputed, or adjudicated.
 
KennyFlys said:
In that 2006 case, "reckless" meant landing a helicopter on a Hollywood street to pick up a rock star and deliver him to a concert. Other incidents include flying too low over a residential neighborhood, landing too close to a military base, and flying with damage to his helicopter.[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva][/FONT]
Click to expand...

All a bit odd. It's not a violation of FAR's to land a helicopter on a street, but can be a violation of a local ordinance. As far as flying low over a residential neighborhood, once again not a FAR violation unless he was considered not in a position to make an emergency landing.

As far as sex in a helicopter that seems a bit of a stretch also.
 
RogerT said:
Ohhhh ... mmmm .. uh oh ... so ... it's against the law to have sexual activity in an aircraft? :-(
Click to expand...
There is a line in an NTSB Order (which I can't find right now) regarding a case involving a 91.13 careless/reckless charge while not alleging any other underlying violation which covers this. It says, more or less, that the Administrator need not anticipate all possible actions which might be careless/reckless and create specific regulations barring each of them -- sort of like the old line about nothing being foolproof because fools are so inventive. Thus, the FAA can charge you with violating 91.13, and the NTSB will sustain the charge, even if you didn't violate any specific rule, as long as the FAA can demonstrate the compromise of safety involved in the the situation.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
It's not a violation of FAR's to land a helicopter on a street,...
Click to expand...
The fact that there is no specific regulation against it doesn't mean the FAA can't book you for it. See Administrator v. Egger. Egger was busted for 91.119 and 91.13 violations after landing in a store's parking lot.
As far as flying low over a residential neighborhood, once again not a FAR violation
Click to expand...
It can be, if the helo has no good place to land if the engine quits or otherwise hazards persons or property on the ground. 91.119(a) and (d), and cases on record.
 
Ron Levy said:
The fact that there is no specific regulation against it doesn't mean the FAA can't book you for it. See Administrator v. Egger. Egger was busted for 91.119 and 91.13 violations after landing in a store's parking lot.
It can be, if the helo has no good place to land if the engine quits or otherwise hazards persons or property on the ground. 91.119(a) and (d), and cases on record.
Click to expand...

Ron, take the time to read my post, and yes I know what the regs read. I've landed on many streets, parking lots, etc.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Ron, take the time to read my post, and yes I know what the regs read. I've landed on many streets, parking lots, etc.
Click to expand...
The fact that you've done it doesn't make it always legal, as Mr. Egger found out. And yes, I read your post, and the FAA has made cases without showing that there was no place to land, just that there were hazards to persons on the ground, including one case where a low-flying helo spooked a horse which threw its rider (see Administrator v. Leaver).
 
Ron Levy said:
The fact that you've done it doesn't make it always legal, as Mr. Egger found out. And yes, I read your post, and the FAA has made cases without showing that there was no place to land, just that there were hazards to persons on the ground, including one case where a low-flying helo spooked a horse which threw its rider (see Administrator v. Leaver).
Click to expand...

Well the FAA better go after every EMS helicopter in the country then if they are going to hold everyone accountable to the letter of the law in regards to the FAR's. EMS operators routinely land on roads, subdivisions, parking lots, etc. As to determining the safety of landing in an emergency that is left up to the PIC and the FAA stays out of it unless there is an accident.

In the case of the pilot mentioned in this thread, it's clear the FAA has a beef with him personally. Why and all the details I don't know, actually don't care. Apparently this individual has chosen to keep himself in the limelight and under close scrutiny of the FAA.

In all my dealings with the FAA while I was actively operating helicopters never once was I questioned about where I was operating my helicopter. The FAA tends to stay out of that leaving it up to local authorities and local ordinances. The times I had discussions with my POI about operating into a LZ in a public area I was always advised "Better check the local ordinances".

Ron Levy said:
The fact that you've done it doesn't make it always legal....
Click to expand...

I always operated legally and safely, and unless you have evidence to show otherwise makes your remark seem rather pompous.
 
In my opinion, and we talked about this in live chat the other night, is that having the instruments "blocked" by his lover's body is not a FAR violation and the FAA has yet again made a poor decision regarding private pilots.

What this teaches you:

Don't videotape your sexual adventures in airplanes, lest the FAA get jealous they're not getting any and revoke your cert.
 
SkyHog said:
In my opinion, and we talked about this in live chat the other night, is that having the instruments "blocked" by his lover's body is not a FAR violation and the FAA has yet again made a poor decision regarding private pilots.

What this teaches you:

Don't videotape your sexual adventures in airplanes, lest the FAA get jealous they're not getting any and revoke your cert.
Click to expand...

True :D

Also one could make the case that this "video" was produced using special effects and was not actually in flight but a sophisticated simulation.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Well the FAA better go after every EMS helicopter in the country then if they are going to hold everyone accountable to the letter of the law in regards to the FAR's. EMS operators routinely land on roads, subdivisions, parking lots, etc. As to determining the safety of landing in an emergency that is left up to the PIC and the FAA stays out of it unless there is an accident.
Click to expand...
You appear to be turning this from a discussion of the regulations and case law to one about your own personal experience, and I can't argue with you about the legality of what you may have done, especially since I agree that it is possible to land on a street or fly low over a residential area without violating 91.119. However...
I always operated legally and safely, and unless you have evidence to show otherwise makes your remark seem rather pompous.
Click to expand...
...Administrator v. Egger and Administrator v. Leaver (cited above) make it clear that there are cases in which violations of the FAR's have been sustained when folks landed helos on parking lots or flew them low even with available emergency landing sites. Thus, it's possible to do either or both without violating the law, but that doesn't mean it's never illegal to do so, which is what you seemed to be saying. It is that point on which I disagree, and if you didn't mean to say it was always legal to do so as long as you had a suitable emergency landing site, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Again, the case law tells us that even when a helo has a suitable emergency landing site available, the FAA may find a 91.13 and/or 91.119 violation if that helo flies low over a residential area or lands in a public area such as a street or parking lot. The FAA will examine all the particular circumstances to make that determination. Choose wisely, and you should not have a problem. Create what the FAA decides is a hazard to others or their property, and you may be in deep legal waters.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Well the FAA better go after every EMS helicopter in the country then if they are going to hold everyone accountable to the letter of the law in regards to the FAR's. EMS operators routinely land on roads, subdivisions, parking lots, etc. As to determining the safety of landing in an emergency that is left up to the PIC and the FAA stays out of it unless there is an accident.
Click to expand...

I think the difference between your example and the supermarket parking lot scenario cited by Ron is that the EMS landing site is secured and protected by law enforcement on the ground, to the extent that there is not a large concern about the public wandering too close to the landing helicopter.

If you or I land at a store parking lot, beach, or road without a ground crew securing a sufficiently large enough area, and without permission of the property owner, then we're setting ourselves up for a 91.13 violation.
 
Also one could make the case that this "video" was produced using special effects...
Click to expand...
In support of that defense, one of the characters in the video has attributes that don't appear wholly realistic.
-harry
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I think the difference between your example and the supermarket parking lot scenario cited by Ron is that the EMS landing site is secured and protected by law enforcement on the ground, to the extent that there is not a large concern about the public wandering too close to the landing helicopter.

If you or I land at a store parking lot, beach, or road without a ground crew securing a sufficiently large enough area, and without permission of the property owner, then we're setting ourselves up for a 91.13 violation.
Click to expand...

Once again, the FAA has always deferred to local laws and ordinances.
 
Well, I've landed helos in parking lots and on streets also when flying for the guard, but I had a reason to do so, or it was pre-cleared or secured. This yahoo swooped down to pick up a rock star to get him to a concert. Different stuff. What if a kid ran into the tail rotor while he was down there primping for his client? EMS has to go places for cogent reasons; this guy didn't have to.

Usually when the FAA takes this kind of action, the pilot has been on their radar screen more than once already. These kind of actions make it tough for all the rest of us who try to be reasonable and cautions.

As for filming it and sharing that film: I'll defer to John Wayne: “Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Well, I've landed helos in parking lots and on streets also when flying for the guard, but I had a reason to do so, or it was pre-cleared or secured. This yahoo swooped down to pick up a rock star to get him to a concert. Different stuff. What if a kid ran into the tail rotor while he was down there primping for his client? EMS has to go places for cogent reasons; this guy didn't have to.

Usually when the FAA takes this kind of action, the pilot has been on their radar screen more than once already. These kind of actions make it tough for all the rest of us who try to be reasonable and cautions.

As for filming it and sharing that film: I'll defer to John Wayne: “Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

The problem is that the issue is unrelated to the landing in the parking lot (that was a different suspension). This one is related to having sex with a woman on camera while her body blocked the instruments from view.

Apparently reckless. Maybe he didn't use a raincoat. That can be reckless I suppose....everything else is fair game, in my eyes.
 
Nick: I don't know all the circumstances and haven't seen the unedited version of the tape, but it certainly doesn't add to the public's view of how a professional pilot should be conducting himself.

I can't judge if it actually was reckless since I'm not part of the panel and won't see all the evidence presented, but, it certainly wasn't smart to tape and share this. If the panel sees all the evidence and deems it reckless, how can we refute that?

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Nick: I don't know all the circumstances and haven't seen the unedited version of the tape, but it certainly doesn't add to the public's view of what is professional pilot should be doing.

I can't judge if it actually was reckless since I'm not part of the panel and won't see all the evidence presented, but, it certainly wasn't smart to tape and share this. If the panel sees all the evidence and deems it reckless, how could I refute that?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

You make a good point. My only counter would be that this kind of thing happens quite frequently, and I only know of 1 NTSB report about a failed endeavor.

Reckless? I dunno, it seems kind of harsh to give a cert suspension for getting busy in the air.
 
SkyHog said:
You make a good point. My only counter would be that this kind of thing happens quite frequently
Click to expand...
source?
Reckless? I dunno, it seems kind of harsh to give a cert suspension for getting busy in the air.
Click to expand...
Aren't we tested on our ability to ignore distractions during flight? :devil:

-Skip
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I think the difference between your example and the supermarket parking lot scenario cited by Ron is that the EMS landing site is secured and protected by law enforcement on the ground, to the extent that there is not a large concern about the public wandering too close to the landing helicopter.

If you or I land at a store parking lot, beach, or road without a ground crew securing a sufficiently large enough area, and without permission of the property owner, then we're setting ourselves up for a 91.13 violation.
Click to expand...

Actually this has to do with the approach to the LZ, not the actual landing there. Once you are on the ground in an LZ the FAA doesn't care, it's up to local law enforcement if any local ordinances have been violated.

If your approach zone into a confined area leaves you room to maneuver in the event of an engine failure. you have met the requirement of FAR 91.119 (a). If your approach was steep into the LZ where there was no problem involving downwash and you stayed well clear of anyone or property then you have satisfied 91.119 (d)

Notice the FAR's do not address LZ's (landing zones).
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Once again, the FAA has always deferred to local laws and ordinances.
Click to expand...
I saw no reference to local laws or ordinances in Egger. It was decided strictly on the basis of the FAR's. I have never seen an FAA enforcement action decided on the basis of local laws or ordinances -- just the FAR's. In fact, I'm don't think the FAA/ALJ/NTSB are permitted to use local laws or ordinances in any way for any decision regarding FAA certificate enforcement actions.
 
Last edited:
Rotor&Wing said:
If your approach zone into a confined area leaves you room to maneuver in the event of an engine failure. you have met the requirement of FAR 91.119 (a). If your approach was steep into the LZ where there was no problem involving downwash and you stayed well clear of anyone or property then you have satisfied 91.119 (d)
Click to expand...
That defense was unavailing in Egger. Perhaps you can point to another case where it was?
 
Ron Levy said:
That defense was unavailing in Egger. Perhaps you can point to another case where it was?
Click to expand...

Ron, I'm not going to argue with a FAA Inspector/Lawyer wannabe over this issue. I've run a helicopter operation and operated under these regs for years and interacted with the FAA over the same. My point in this is clear. The regs are very clear. You obviously don't understand helicopter operations nor the applicable regulations.

That's my last comment on this topic and thread.
 
I think something that may be forgotten is the difference between spirit of the law intended and what the courts may decide is the word, or vise versa. There's also the concept of, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

That being said, I'm not sure why any helo should be landing in an unprotected area other than law enforcement and EMS with the assistance of law enforcement on the ground.
 
Ron Levy said:
That defense was unavailing in Egger. Perhaps you can point to another case where it was?
Click to expand...


The problem is Ron, while we all except the law, even a lawyer will tell you that bad law enforcement makes bad case law.

The more I learn about aviation the more I learn that most of us get to fly simply because the capricious nature of the "system" has not turned its on on us. I believe that based on what I have read in the FAR's AND the inane and asinine case law I have seen, almost all of us could be violated and have our certs revoked based on the OPINION of a single FAA official, regardless of the merits of the issue or written FAR's.

Government run amock again....wonderful. :rolleyes:
 
tdager said:
The more I learn about aviation the more I learn that most of us get to fly simply because the capricious nature of the "system" has not turned its on on us. I believe that based on what I have read in the FAR's AND the inane and asinine case law I have seen, almost all of us could be violated and have our certs revoked based on the OPINION of a single FAA official, regardless of the merits of the issue or written FAR's.
Click to expand...

That can't possibly happen. Just ask Bob Hoover. :frown3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top