Martha Lunken has privileges revoked

Flew under a bridge and was caught. At least she wasn’t “Hoovered”

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/04/18/lunken-airport-faa-martha-jeremiah-morrow-bridge/7089271002/

Cheers

 

Not exactly sure what other outcome could be expected. A former FSDO employee, a former DPE, an experienced flight instructor - she knows better but did it anyway.

Yes, I've always wanted to do that, but never actually will, until maybe I've decided it's going to be my last flight ever anyway, might as well.

 

If you're gonna do it, a popped breaker, some duct tape, and vinyl solves the issue of who it was.

 

Only thing surprising to me was it took a year for the actual revocation.

Cheers

 

Yup. It's one of those things that isn't particularly dangerous—I've been above, on, and below the bridges (they are twins) in question, they are 15 minutes away—but clearly against the regulations. But still, there is plenty of room. She's had a strike or two against her already, with the Cub-on-the-loose thing, etc. I'm not sure one of us would get the same punishment, but I'm not gonna find out. Cameras are everywhere, and most people who'd do that would likely tell someone.

 

Honest, unless the FAA police are out watching, she is still "capable" of flying outlaw farmer style. It's beyond incredible we seriously put the piece of paper before the actual human ability. She didn't cause any actual harm to anyone and the only degradation to her pilot skills will be from the FAA's enforcement action.

 

So rules should only apply to a selected group? And which set of rules shall apply to one group but yet not another?

 

Being based at the same location as the FSDO and very well known, any flying will be highly noticeable.

Cheers

 

That is the reality of our world.

 

Ask anyone in D.C. or any state capital. It's been going on since, forever.

 

IBTL

 

Seems to me that @denverpilot posted in another thread about how laws are often ignored with limited consequences....

 

Lol. Why?

 

Funny thing is, let's say for sake of argument Martha posted a pic of her bridge under flight, and posted "WooHoo! Look at me!" and the FAA never acted.

We would then see replies of "See! She was a former FAA manager and they are looking the other way! So unfair!"

 

No, rules should reflect reality - like if someone got their wallet stolen, or forgotten at home for instance, the lack of a piece of paper shouldn't keep them from using their property, and punishment should be equivalent and tied to the actual "crime."

 

Only if someone else did the same thing and they got the hammer would anyone raise a fuss like that.
I'm of the no harm no foul camp. Give her or whoever a 60/90/180 day time out a 709 and send them on their way.

 

I'm NOT saying she "should' - but saying that she "could" and there's little that anyone could do about it. Pack her bags, get in her car, and go somewhere where the skies are friendlier...

 

So break more rules in defiance of being caught breaking rules.

Got it.

 

Isn't that what happened in her case?

 

No.

 

I'm reminded of the fellow who took off from Paris, knowing he would never return to France ...

 

Stop mis-reading me. This kind of conflation is what makes me distrust the FAA. I'm saying that there's little the FAA could actually do to stop her if she WAS a danger to the public, which I find a disturbing conclusion. If the danger to the public was real, you'd need to actually lock her up, to keep her from going out and grabbing a plane and killing someone. If you don't need to lock her up, then this action is excessive.
This action relies on her actual good faith to not exercise her skill vs. her "privileges" and thus calls the bluff.

 

Last flight between losing my medical and selling my airplane....

Gateway Arch....

 

So do you believe the article in the OP tells the whole story of what happened, from both sides?

 

If I’m still flying at 79 and the Jeremiah Morrow Bridge was on my bucket list...

Funny, she was the DPE on my IFR check ride.

 

I never understood why flying under a bridge was such a big deal. What’s the worst that would likely happen? I can legally fly over a body of water at low level but not if there’s a bridge there?

 

FAA Order 2150.3C

 

I'll answer that if you answer this:

Does she still have the "ability" to fly an airplane, and does the FAA's action prevent her from buying an airplane with some cash and flying it in Oklahoma?

 

If she wants to risk prison time. That's strictly her call.

https://www.oig.dot.gov/investigati...min][date]=&field_post_date_value[max][date]=

 

I double, nope, triple dog dare you.

 

Just because it's written down doesn't mean it's appropriate. Not every single 91.13 or 119 has resulted in a revocation. So even this isn't being applied equally.

 

The irony here is from any locals I've personally talked to that have had actual dealings with Martha, nobody would be surprised by her doing some stunt because she felt entitled, nor feel bad for her getting her ticket yanked.

 

So risking prison time only affects those who actually care, if she knew she had terminal cancer, how's that really a threat? That threat wouldn't stop a suicidal individual, either. I'd argue that the punishment does nothing to stop real criminals and is excessive for those who would actually regard the law. If it took a year for this suspension, she could probably get away with it elsewhere for what, six months at least if she was careful? How much does that put the public at risk? Be honest.

Regarding your previous question, it's honestly irrelevant to my point. She has the knowledge, skills, and ability to hurt someone IF that's what this is really about. Lock her up, throw the rule out, or make the punishment more appropriate to the danger.

 

Nice reply without reading the supplied material.

 

i was thinking Grand Canyon at wave top height.

 

I've read it.

 

Just so I’m not misreading you...is revocation the equivalent of removing all freedoms, or revocation should also be accompanied by removing all freedoms?

 

Lots of BS in the article...

It mentioned 1930 and says she remembers it... She wasn't alive yet.

ODOT "Drone camera" no, ODOT has traffic/weather cameras mounted all over I-71 and other highways.

And it basically makes her out to be a hero. But hey, she's a self described legend right there in the article.