I'm saying that the punishment - if it does fit the "crime" - is meaningless if the crime is really serious, and there is imminent danger to the public. If there is imminent danger to the public, they should make the case, then honest to goodness lock the person up and there should be a chance for a jury trial, etc... or else this is probably a bad "law."
Where is “imminent danger to the public” a part of this? And why is that a requirement for ANY action?
isn't that why we aren't supposed to fly under bridges?
Got a reference?
That’s an argument that can be applied to most laws and regulations. Not anything special about the FAA regs
Wow. Didn't know you had all the documentation, and inside knowledge on what happened in Ms Lunken's case and enforcement.
No, because this part is implausible. She heard nothing between the letter of investigation and a box revoking her certificates?
However, saying she *should* go ahead and fly anyway, is different than saying that she *could*.
Yeah and there is nothing you can do.
So, it never ceases to annoy that we can't put this in front of a real jury... Betcha the FAA would win some, and lose some, too.
I’d be willing to bet there were revocations for “flying at or near structures” for a lot longer than 20 years. I’d say the biggest change in the last 20 years is the availability of proof.
No, I’m all about equality...use any tree.Funny thing with these threads, everyone complains when the man enforces the rules against someone who breaks the rules. Yet when a person breaks the rules that directly affect the people complaining in the first place, they want that rule breaker to hang from the highest tree.
Show me the process where this could be taken to a jury at the request of the defendant. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.
If the crime deserves a hanging, then it should be pretty clear, and after due process hang them... if not, it's immoral to hang them.Funny thing with these threads, everyone complains when the man enforces the rules against someone who breaks the rules. Yet when a person breaks the rules that directly affect the people complaining in the first place, they want that rule breaker to hang from the highest tree.
It's a regulatory action - it can end up in court, but not until all administrative procedures and appeals have been exhausted (including any ALJ and NTSB appeals as appropriate). Even if it ends up in court, the court usually defers to the judgement of the expert agency.
Still can't find a jury trial option, only an administrative law judge, for something that at the age of 79 is probably the only profession an individual can still easily find reasonable employment at since it's pretty late for a career change. She's killed 0 people, doesn't sound like she's actually crashed a plane, either.
I think you missed the point of my post.
If you have additionalknowledge, please share. Otherwise, the rest of us will comment based on what we do know.Wow. Didn't know you had all the documentation, and inside knowledge on what happened in Ms Lunken's case and enforcement.
True of every article we see here. Some refrain from commenting without all the facts. But everyone who chooses to comment is doing so from limited information.
Interesting take on it. Gets me thinking.
I dealt with a different fed agency. Same process but some different nuances (for example, the agency I dealt with didn't have appeals to the NTSB). IIRC, the FAA process starts with the administrative appeals, goes to an ALJ, then it can be appealed to the NTSB where an ALJ rules, which can be appealed to the full NTSB, and at that point can be appealed into the court system. It's been a long time so I don't remember whether the appeal goes in to the "regular" courts or into the court of appeals - if it's the court of appeals, I don't believe there's room for a jury trial. But again, it's been a long time and some of the appeals processes have changed (for example, appealing a TSA/DHS matter goes to the court of appeals, which presents an obstacle without a lower court ruling).