Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by onwards, Jun 22, 2020.
Can the FAA immediately pull someone's ticket for behavior like that?
I think the US Marshals can knock on your door and "ask" for it.
I have heard of such a thing as emergency revocation. How immediate it is, I don't know.
It is possible it was a medical problem. Unlikely, but possible.
a severe case of Hubris?
Well, he's not hard of hearing. Maybe hard of listening?
It still takes a report from the FSDO to the legal group and the issuance of an emergency revocation order which is appealable to the NTSB on a shortened timeline.
it can happen quickly, but if you are thinking of an Inspector walking up to a pilot and saying, "Gimmee that!" and cutting it up on the spot on his own initiative, no.
You mean, like, without due process?
Harrison Ford landed on a taxiway at John Wayne KSNA that was occupied by a 737. He certainly appears to be vastly more dangerous to the flying public than WIFE-APPROVED LLC. Ford was eventually required to complete "awareness training", no marshals, no certificate action of any kind. I'm trying, but failing, to understand the perspective y'all are bringing to the conversation here. Taken in context, a public lynching with the aid of the US Marshall's service seems a bit of an overreaction.
I was told my 210 came with a Bravo clearance.
I don’t think there is a need for an emergency revocation, but definitely discipline. As a side note, Harrison Ford didn’t do anything intentionally, but this guy willfully (or ignorantly?) did. So, a willful or ignorant violation is what we dealing with. His attitude is what is getting all the attention. It sucked and it should play into the motivation to get the process started.
We know about Ford's taxiway incident, where he ignorantly endangered over 100 people in that 737, and his next screw-up action about a year later where he ignorantly endangered the flying public by crossing an active runway without clearance. In other words...two ignorant violations on the part of a once-beloved movie star is what we are dealing with. What about WIFE-APPROVED LLC? He appears to fly a lot...doe HE have a record of other ignorant violations and crashes like Harrison Ford does?
Just looking for context here....being a dick will, no doubt, figure in eventually, but that is a job for the FSDO, certainly not the US Marshall.
So, you really think a pilot who makes a mistake (and one which has been made numerous times by other pilots at that very airport) is "vastly more dangerous to the flying public" than a pilot who is knowingly, intentionally violating a FAR and combatatively disregarding ATC direction in controlled airspace?
Yeah, I really think that senility and inability to follow ATC instructions in complicated airspace, with a history of multiple incidents, is "vastly more dangerous to the flying public" than some guy, as far as you know, who ONCE busted Bravo airspace and happened to be a dick to ATC on the radio. I'm pretty amazed that YOUR outlook is such that you don't see it that way. I'll rethink it if and when you can demonstrate that W-A LLC has a history with FSDO and THEN might be able to equate the two.
While both types of errors (unintentional vs intentional/arrogant) are obviously bad, I am more afraid of errors due to arrogance and hubris. If he had immediately apologized and asked the controller if he could get a clearance now, or if he should leave the Bravo, we never would have heard about the incident. His response to the controller is what made him infamous. The arrogance of this guy is a personality defect which can never be fixed with any amount of retraining. I hope they keep him out of the air.
It's not a question of the relative danger of the two actions, but a question of the disciplinary actions necessary to correct the behavior.
A pilot who accidentally makes a mistake and is contrite about it requires less correction than a pilot who intentionally disobeys explicit ATC directions, argues with ATC about it, and willfully continues the violation.
(in a whiny voice) the whole point of buying a 210 was to have the clearance.
I'm worried about both, but I'm more worried about an aging pilot that repeatedly CAN'T follow ATC instructions.
He's still beloved, in my opinion. But he is aging...
You don’t think the Wife guy endangered numerous aircraft by intentionally cutting through the very busy terminal airspace, and not following ATC direction?
You're reaching pretty hard if you think that that's what I said.
I wonder if he filed a NASA ASRS report?
We listening to LiveATC again, it seems likely N731NR was confused by the type of clearance required.
He says “I’ve been talking to you for the last 15 minutes”. Sounds like the guy thought he established 2-way radio communications used to clear Charlie airspace while actually in Bravo airspace with the Charlie protocol.
Wouldn't cover willful non-compliance.
I also had the impression that the pilot of N731NR somehow thought that he could enter the Bravo airspace once he had established two-way radio communications with the controller. But even in Charlie or Delta airspace, if the controller tells you to get out of the airspace, you can't just disregard that instruction. And, if the registered agent whose address is also the principal office and mailing address of the LLC that owns the plane was in fact flying, it seems incredible that someone holding a commercial pilot license with ASEL, ASES, AMEL, and instrument ratings, apparently based at KTOA in some of the most complicated airspace in the country including plenty of Bravo, could manage to escape the knowledge that a specific clearance is required to enter Bravo airspace.
As far as the comparison between Harrison Ford and the pilot of N731NR, it is apples-to-oranges for the fundamental reason of the FAA's compliance philosophy. When Harrison Ford landed on the taxiway (I can't pass judgment on whether the mistake was understandable or not, as I haven't flown there, but it sounds like he wasn't the first or last person to land on that particular taxiway), they gave him a number to call. He promptly called it and started right out with "Hi, I'm the schmuck who landed on the taxiway." His momentary lapse led to his Husky being closer than it should be to an airliner, but his attitude was "that was my fault, I will take my lumps and strive to do better." Taking responsibility for his mistake without the "encouragement" of certificate action is what the FAA wants to see.
In contrast, the pilot of N731NR exhibited an unrepentant anti-authority attitude. He flew into the Bravo airspace without a clearance, argued with the controller when she repeatedly told him to exit the Bravo, and continued his flight through as if he owned the airspace. All the information we have at this point shows that he blamed ATC for his blatant mistake, somehow convincing Tower to apologize to him for Approach's service. Maybe he called the number they gave him with hat in hand, but that would be a complete 180 from all the radio calls that we have heard so far.
It's just a matter of perspective and phrasing. "The Approach controller tricked me into flying into the Bravo airspace. She was talking to me all night and seemed okay with how things were going. But once I got a few miles into the airspace, she completely changed her tune and suddenly started screaming at me to get out. She even had some other guy there who called me an A-hole."
Perhaps he was headed to Tosche station for some power converters...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Personally, I would be satisfied if the wife-approved guy gets some counseling on the relevant regulations, provided that he sees the error of his ways in the process.
I'm not seeing the ignorance in those violations.
That would qualify as a bag of lame excuses in my book.
Generally speaking, it's unusual that a cognizant and knowledgeable pilot would accidentally land on an occupied taxiway at a major airport. At least around here. Maybe things are different in California.
Except there wasn't a whole bunch of calls between N731NR and KLAS Approach, just the initial contact (without a clearance request and without a clearance given).
I'm not saying you believe your quote above (and, of course, I mighted have missed other communication between N731NR and Approach)...
Cognitive decline (if that's what it was) is not the same thing as ignorance.
I can't even blame the lack of a <SARCASM> tag in the HTML specification, because even in person people mistake my unfunny style of humor for sincerity.
Unusual, certainly. But here is an even higher-profile example (a Continental 757 with 154 on board landing on a taxiway at Newark). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Airlines_Flight_1883
This one sticks in my mind because it happened shortly before--and not far from--my check ride. My DPE was a retired 747 captain for another airline, and she worked a lot of questions about distinguishing taxiways from runways into my oral exam. Each time I answered correctly she'd exclaim: "See! You know the difference! How could they not know the difference!"
No big deal. The FSDO-approved remedial action for taxiway landings is apparently just completion of "awareness training" and no certificate action.
It happens due to inattention or distraction. The layout at SNA is more confusing than most parallel runway setups so, if it's going to happen, I'm not surprised that it was at SNA.
B757. The distinction is important because the B777 pays a lot more than the 757...
Oops, I fixed it. I knew it was a 757 but my fingers weren't paying attention.
I find that works well enough for that purpose.
Ford was handled under the Compliance Program which treats "honest mistakes" and "unintentional errors" as things which can be treated with counseling and training. Ford's attitude and remorse from the second he was told about in made him a perfect candidate.
The problem with the attack on the pilot of NR is that we don't know the whole story. It "sounds" like a flagrant, intentional act with complete disregard of both the requirement for a Class B clearance and the requirement to obey ATC instructions, especially if the speculation of who he is is correct - a commercial pilot with single, multi, and instrument ratings. But you never know. There may far more to the rest of the story. There may have been something pressing going on we don't know about which led the pilot to act that way. We don't know whether there will be a bout of humility when/if he deals with the FAA directly.
I think it's fair the judge the act based on the assumption we have heard everything, but not fair to judge the person without knowing the entire story.