Hoo boy! Plane on golf course could be one of ours.

[jwriteclub]

As the son of a lawyer:

"I didn't do it, and even if I did, you can't prove it, and even if you can, it's not what you think it was."

~ Christopher

 

[alaskaflyer]

I am resolved to never again live anywhere where a situation like this would result in anything other than a nasty discussion between the pilot and the golf course operator.

We have abdicated in so many ways...

 

[jwriteclub]

Ditto. Double Ditto.

~ Christopher

 

[mikea]

I am resolved to never again live anywhere where a situation like this would result in anything other than a nasty discussion between the pilot and the golf course operator.

We have abdicated in so many ways...

I think the community reaction to dis guy was more because they thought he was in distress than they were scared, but there are a lot of neighbors in the businesses and roads around it and any reaction is possible. There aren't a lot of homes right in the mile or so near there. It's more industrial and recreational.

 

[Teller1900]

Kinda hard to do when you're found walking away from the airplane with a tennis racket in your hand!

Your mechanic lives a ways away, you needed to pass the time while he was driving in!

 

[mikea]

Felony? and Unairworthy due to the fuel leak.

Pilot faces felony charges for landing at Marriott

A Lake Villa man could face criminal charges and penalties from the Federal Aviation Administration for illegally landing his small plane at Lincolnshire Marriott Resort Saturday afternoon so his son wouldn't be late for a tennis lesson.
...
Upon arriving at the Marriott, police officers found the father and son standing outside the plane holding tennis gear.

Police received numerous 911 calls after the plane landed at about 1:49 p.m. Police called the FAA. The FAA grounded the plane, which was leaking fuel, according to Lincolnshire Police.
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/lincolnshire/news/827999,lr-plane-030608-s1.article

 

[Henning]

WHAT A F'ING IDIOT!!!​

No kidding huh? What was he thinking shutting down like that? You duct tape your tail numbers, drop in, throw the kid out and haul a-- before anyone can get there. Sheesh, the dude ain't very bright.

 

[gprellwitz]

Felony? and Unairworthy due to the fuel leak.

Well, as to both:

The FAA grounded the plane, which was leaking fuel, according to Lincolnshire Police. "It was not airworthy," said Detective John-Erik Anderson.

So the detective was making the airworthiness determination? And did the FAA actually ground the airplane, and, if so, because of the ostensibly leaking fuel? We know how accurate reporting tends to be.

That said, I stand by the comments that this guy is a total idjit.

 

[mikea]

 

[Skip Miller]

Gotta wonder how much time he actually saved given the need to pre-flight, get wx briefing, etc.

Leslie, there is a huge assumption embedded in your wondering. I bet he did none of that stuff.

-Skip

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Seems he's been charged with some crimes: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-golf-course-landing_both_30apr30,0,7409368.story

 

[SkyHog]

Maybe its just me, but I don't get why this is that big of a deal? In many places you can land wherever the hell you want, avoiding danger to those below. Seems to me a closed golf course in the middle of winter is a good spot to land.

Now, this is Chicago, the most aviation-unfriendly city in the world....but still. Is there actually a law that says that planes must be operated to/from airstrips only? I know there's no law like that here in New Mexico.

 

[ScottM]

Maybe its just me, but I don't get why this is that big of a deal? In many places you can land wherever the hell you want, avoiding danger to those below. Seems to me a closed golf course in the middle of winter is a good spot to land.

Now, this is Chicago, the most aviation-unfriendly city in the world....but still. Is there actually a law that says that planes must be operated to/from airstrips only? I know there's no law like that here in New Mexico.

I am sure a lot of it was his attitude. Plus it was in the middle of a suburb on private property.

Where I live, a bit west of there this occurred, a guy landed his seaplane in the local lake. The lake is patrolled by the polics and they rushed over to cite him. Problem was this city lake had grandfathered landing rights to one of the residents who had listed it as a seaplane base even though he himself no longer flies. But he let his friend come in and use it. The police, to their credit, backed off, did not cite him. There was some 'moral' outrage from the rich people along the lake to stop those 'dangerous and wild' airplanes form using the lake. But the police chief actually said that they should get over it as it was legal and as far as he is concerned the issue is over.

But this knucklehead not only did this without permission of the land owner gave a flippant excuse as to why he needed to be there and when the real reason came out it just appears as a spoiled rich pilot.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Maybe its just me, but I don't get why this is that big of a deal? In many places you can land wherever the hell you want, avoiding danger to those below. Seems to me a closed golf course in the middle of winter is a good spot to land.

Now, this is Chicago, the most aviation-unfriendly city in the world....but still. Is there actually a law that says that planes must be operated to/from airstrips only? I know there's no law like that here in New Mexico.

I'm not aware of any Illinois state law to that effect, but I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the big deciding factor in this case was the dude's "Bah, yeah, whatever, I'm probably gonna be arrested" attitude. You can really hear it in this interview here.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

"Endangering the life or health of a child?" Are you F-in kidding me? Have they driven on Chicago-area ROADS lately?!?!?!!!!! Gimme a break. Also - Stupid, yes. Reckless, no.

And if you look at the poll results ("Should he have been charged") it's 78% yes. What a crock.

 

[ScottM]

And if you look at the poll results ("Should he have been charged") it's 78% yes. What a crock.

I voted no. I think he is an idiot but not criminally idiotic.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

"Endangering the life or health of a child?" Are you F-in kidding me? Have they driven on Chicago-area ROADS lately?!?!?!!!!! Gimme a break. Also - Stupid, yes. Reckless, no.

And if you look at the poll results ("Should he have been charged") it's 78% yes. What a crock.

I voted no. I think he is an idiot but not criminally idiotic.

Yeah... I'd probably have been okay with a trespassing charge. But endangerment? Nah.

 

[955]

This is ridiculous.

Break an FAR? Maybe. Probably so.

But break the law?

Please.

One article I read said one of the reasons he was charged was the lack of transponder in the Mode C ring. Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is an FAR, not a law.

This one crosses the line, and I bet it gets tossed on technicalities - but I also bet the FSDO yanks his ticket.

I fly with my kid all the time - my wife and I now wonder; if I land off field in a genuine emergency, am I "endangering" him? What precedent is this going to set?

Granted - I drive by this golf course every morning on the way to work. It amazes me he thought it'd go unnoticed - the local cop shop is right down the road, and also adjacent to the same golf course.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=182095&src=66

 

[ReverendSlappy]

This is ridiculous.

Break an FAR? Maybe. Probably so.

But break the law?

Please.

One article I read said one of the reasons he was charged was the lack of transponder in the Mode C ring. Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is an FAR, not a law.

This one crosses the line, and I bet it gets tossed on technicalities - but I also bet the FSDO yanks his ticket.

I fly with my kid all the time - my wife and I now wonder; if I land off field in a genuine emergency, am I "endangering" him? What precedent is this going to set?

Granted - I drive by this golf course every morning on the way to work. It amazes me he thought it'd go unnoticed - the local cop shop is right down the road, and also adjacent to the same golf course.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=182095&src=66

Yeah, I don't see how one can really prosecute anything related to the flying.

Being on private property without permission? Yeah, ding him for that -- who cares how he got there. Purposely causing a bunch of people to think there might be an emergency when no emergency existed? Sure, that sounds like disorderly conduct maybe. But "endangerment"? It's hardly the purview of the local constabulary to determine what constitutes flying that "endangers" someone and flying that doesn't, IMNSHO.

 

[KennyFlys]

Trespassing is as far as it needs to go. And, maybe some public humiliation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

As for the "when necessary for landing" argument, if someone decides to do a touch and go off the Sears tower, thats OK because he was landing, right? I bet not.

No, not OK - That's reckless. Lots of people, and very easy to screw up.

If on your next airline flight, the crew decides to put an aircraft that requires 5000' for landing performance into a 2000' foot strip for giggles, is that reckless conduct with the passengers lives, even if some how he/she gets it stopped without killing someone or bending the airplane?

That's not only reckless, it's suicidal for the pilots and since there are paying passengers aboard, criminal (ie murder).

Those that believe all this is somehow OK because he didn't kill himself "this time" should be prepared for sharing some culpability for the next cowboy who lacks the common sense GOD gave little green apples. I can remember when drinking and driving used to be "fashionable" too.

This guy wasn't drinking. He wasn't landing on the Sears Tower. He wasn't doing anything that the plane wasn't capable of, and it appears that he was capable enough to get it done this time. IMHO, if he had obtained permission to land on the golf course, there wouldn't have been a damn thing wrong with what he did.

If it's suddenly criminally reckless to land a tailwheel airplane on something other than a designated runway, commerce in the state of Alaska will grind to a halt. Just because YOU wouldn't do it, doesn't mean it should be illegal for the other guy to do it. And criminal? No way.

Again - If he had obtained permission, I'd be perfectly OK with it. And just because he didn't have permission doesn't mean he was endangering his kid, and it doesn't mean he was being reckless. It means he was trespassing. If he'd had permission, when the cops showed up he could have said "I have permission to land here" and everyone would have gone away and we never would have heard about it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You are correct, he didn't do a touch and go (that we know of) on the Sears tower (whats good for the goose analogy), but he did violate a number of State statutes.

Besides trespassing? Name them. I remain unconvinced.

 

[KennyFlys]

I seem to remember a couple of fellas doing Federal time for the Value Jet crash in the everglades. (Shipping and/or loading the O2 canisters on the aircraft, aviation related, criminal?). Civil prosecution of those involved in aviation accidents and incidents is the norm in most of the world. This may be the case which brings it home to America.

As for the "when necessary for landing" argument, if someone decides to do a touch and go off the Sears tower, thats OK because he was landing, right? I bet not.

If on your next airline flight, the crew decides to put an aircraft that requires 5000' for landing performance into a 2000' foot strip for giggles, is that reckless conduct with the passengers lives, even if some how he/she gets it stopped without killing someone or bending the airplane?

Those that believe all this is somehow OK because he didn't kill himself "this time" should be prepared for sharing some culpability for the next cowboy who lacks the common sense GOD gave little green apples. I can remember when drinking and driving used to be "fashionable" too.

My earlier comment was in regard to the child endangerment charges. As far as violating any FARs, heck yeah... pay the piper; particularly after the attitude displayed on the interview.

 

[gprellwitz]

I think there is quite a bit more at play here than has been reported in the press. I trust that with the level of media attention this incident has received and the numerous levels of review the investigation has passed muster on, this was not a knee jerk filing. Would permission have helped, probably, but we will never know. Is it such a surprise that we are our own worst enemy?

Actually, it's the level of media attention that makes a knee-jerk response more likely! And I'm with Kent on this one. Had he obtained prior permission and adequately determined both the condition of the plane prior to departure and the adequacy of the intended destination, there's no endangerment. However, lacking this, endangerment is a possibility. As we speculated above, he may not have met these additional basic requirements. If the filing is solely because of the golf course landing; it's unwarranted, IMHO.

 

[955]

I still cringe at the part about the Mode C veil in the charges - if that sticks it is really BS - the FAR's are enough. He did something dumb. Doesn't need to be charged in court...

 

[mikea]

The pilot is still facing criminal charges, evidently because it's so unusual for an airplane to land....

"It kind of goes without saying that something was weird, something was wrong. There was an airplane on the golf course," Lake County Judge Charles Johnson said in refusing to toss out the charges.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1161502,CST-NWS-newplane13.article

Can't have that. The next you know those airplane pilots will think they can fly anywhere and Duh Mare knows that can't be true.

 

[wabower]

No kidding huh? What was he thinking shutting down like that? You duct tape your tail numbers, drop in, throw the kid out and haul a-- before anyone can get there. Sheesh, the dude ain't very bright.

How do you get the kid back?

 

[dmccormack]

How do you get the kid back?

Fulton Skyhook

 

[mikea]

How do you get the kid back?

Fulton Skyhook

http://www.americantaxi.com/

 

[mikea]

Only 14 months later. He plead guilty to trespassing once the authorities recovered their senses.

Robert Kadera, 66, pleaded guilty to criminal trespass to property and disorderly conduct during a hearing before Associate Judge Charles Johnson.

..
No one was injured and there was no significant damage to the course, but Kadera was originally charged with the misdemeanor offenses of reckless conduct and endangering the life of a child.

Assistant State's Attorney Lauren Walker said she agreed to drop those charges in exchange for Kadera's plea to the less serious charges.

Criminal trespass to property carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,500 fine, while disorderly conduct in punishable by a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $1,500.

Both of the original charges against Kadera carry a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Johnson sentenced Kadera to 18 months of court supervision and ordered him to perform 60 hours of community service. He also told Kadera to pay a $500 fine and to make a $600 contribution to Lake County Crime Stoppers.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=293401

but WORST OF ALL!

Kadera must also abide by all requirements and administrative actions of the Federal Aviation Administration, and is to have no contact with the Marriott Lincolnshire Resort without Johnson's permission.

 

[colomtnflyer]

Does this qualify as an emergency?

"WAUKEGAN, Ill — An Illionois man is sentenced to 18 months of court supervision after landing his four-seat plane on a golf course so his 14-year-old son wouldn't be late for a tennis lesson."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520199,00.html

And a $500 fine...

This is unbelievably ridiculous! (The story... and the fact they can't spell Illinois correctly!)

 

[alaskaflyer]

Re: Does this qualify as an emergency?

There is a thread about this somewhere on here. I agree it is ridiculous and blown way out of proportion. Suffice to say that the Cessna marketing department from the fifties met Illinois law enforcement and lost

 

[ScottM]

Re: Does this qualify as an emergency?

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19757&highlight=golf

 

[ScottM]

Re: Does this qualify as an emergency?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520199,00.html

And a $500 fine...

This is unbelievably ridiculous! (The story... and the fact they can't spell Illinois correctly!)

Well it is Fox

 

[PittsDriver]

I don't understand the trespassing charge. Wasn't he supposed to be on the resort property for his son's tennis lesson? It's not trespassing if you show up in a car but it is if you show up in an airplane?

It's probably not something I would have done without permission but I haven't heard anything yet that said this guy did anything reckless or crazy. What's the big deal?

They likely sat him down and said something to the effect, "We're gonna get you for something so you might as well plea out to this..."

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: Does this qualify as an emergency?

To answer the question in the thread title, no, it does not, and I'm pretty sure this guy's going to be on the ground for a while when the FAA gets done with him. Rumor has it this isn't his first FAA rodeo, and the FAA once took a helo pilot's ticket for plopping down in the parking lot of a convenience store to pick up a few bags of ice without having the landing spot secured.

 

[mikea]

I don't understand the trespassing charge. Wasn't he supposed to be on the resort property for his son's tennis lesson? It's not trespassing if you show up in a car but it is if you show up in an airplane?

It's probably not something I would have done without permission but I haven't heard anything yet that said this guy did anything reckless or crazy. What's the big deal?

They likely sat him down and said something to the effect, "We're gonna get you for something so you might as well plea out to this..."

The golf course was closed for winter. I don't think the tennis club is the same place other than another facility on the area.

More like, "We have to get you on something. Everybody's watching....(and maybe a few old folks want action.)"

They promised that the FAA would take some action. We'll see.

 

[poadeleted20]

They promised that the FAA would take some action. We'll see.

Rumor has it this isn't this guy's first FAA rodeo. I'm pretty sure he's going to be grounded for a while. The delay in action may be that the FAA was waiting for the criminal action to play out before diving in so they can use the criminal conviction as part of their enforcement action case, or that the FAA was holding in abeyance so as not to interfere with the criminal case.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Re: Does this qualify as an emergency?

No. It is not an emgency. Normally, I side with the pilot to determine whether he is in an emergency situation. Not this time.

 

[GigG601XL]

I don't understand the trespassing charge. Wasn't he supposed to be on the resort property for his son's tennis lesson? It's not trespassing if you show up in a car but it is if you show up in an airplane?

It would have been tresspassing if he had driven his car on the golf course.