Virginia Sherriff charges pilot with reckless flying for low pass over lake

azpilot

azpilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
821
Display Name
Display name:
azpilot
https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-...es-pilot-with-reckless-operation-of-aircraft/

"According to the Orange Sheriff’s Office 65-year-old James W. Jelinek, Jr. was identified as the driver of an aircraft that flew at a height of less than 100 feet over Lake of the Woods, a private, planned residential community of single-family homes in northeastern Orange County, on Sunday, July 10.

The Sheriff’s Office has charged Jelinek with the reckless operation of an aircraft. He is scheduled to appear in Orange General District Court at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, August 26."

How fast is this getting thrown out of court???
 
That "driver of an aircraft" part is the key ...:D
 
I'm curious, does the local jurisdiction or state have a reckless operation of an aircraft ordinance? Has it ever been discovered by the FAA?

When I was recently dealing with local LEO regarding something else aviation related, I was told local can not press Federal charges, only local and state laws and ordinances. So even if you violated an FAR, your local Smokey can't do anything about it except make a report and forward it on to the appropriate federal agency.

Not really trying to defend the pilot's buzz job. This kind of stuff reflects poorly on aviation in general. But I think Mr. Sheriff may have overstepped his legal authority.
 
mandm said:
And how did they calculate the height?
Click to expand...
Lake-of-the-Woods-aircraft-violation-081722.jpg


Van's Aircraft RV-6/Length: 20.17′
 
Last edited:
More info under the STATE code the sheriff arrested him under:

The sheriff’s office identified the pilot at XXXXX, 65, of Warrenton, and arrested him Thursday for reckless operation of an aircraft, according to a news release.

The state code Jelinek was arrested under defines reckless operation as flying “carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property.”​

https://www.insidenova.com/headline...cle_4e633370-1fce-11ed-b407-bb6148600fe8.html

§ 5.1-13. Operation of aircraft while under influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs; reckless operation.
Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any narcotic or any habit-forming drugs shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years, or, in the discretion of the court or jury trying the case, be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months and fined not exceeding $500, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Code 1950, § 5-10.1; 1964, c. 416; 1966, c. 576.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/5.1-13/​
 
There is a relevant federal regulation. I can't tell whether he was in compliance with that standard, but I would think the federal regulation would preempt the state's "negligent operation" motor vehicle statute.
 
LesGawlik said:
There is a relevant federal regulation. I can't tell whether he was in compliance with that standard, but I would think the federal regulation would preempt the state's "negligent operation" motor vehicle statute.
Click to expand...
See the post above. It's not negligent operation of a motor vehicle. It states "aircraft."
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'm curious, does the local jurisdiction or state have a reckless operation of an aircraft ordinance? Has it ever been discovered by the FAA?

When I was recently dealing with local LEO regarding something else aviation related, I was told local can not press Federal charges, only local and state laws and ordinances. So even if you violated an FAR, your local Smokey can't do anything about it except make a report and forward it on to the appropriate federal agency.

Not really trying to defend the pilot's buzz job. This kind of stuff reflects poorly on aviation in general. But I think Mr. Sheriff may have overstepped his legal authority.
Click to expand...

I didn't think local/state got to have statutes regarding airspace.
 
carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
is undefined enough to use just about any time you'd like to.
 
EdFred said:
I didn't think local/state got to have statutes regarding airspace.
Click to expand...

I would agree. I know some have tried before, usually going undiscovered until someone actually tries to enforce them.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
See the post above. It's not negligent operation of a motor vehicle. It states "aircraft."
Click to expand...
That's even better. If he meets the relevant federal CFR, how does a state get to criminalize his behavior. I am assuming he meets the 500' rule, which it appears he does. I have been that low over the Chesapeake Bay in a seaplane with an instructor, but we stayed away from persons, structures and vessels.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Code 1950, § 5-10.1; 1964, c. 416; 1966, c. 576.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/5.1-13/​
Click to expand...

The other question, what is the measure of careless? I had a friend that was once ticketed for Careless Driving, and we had the same question then. We could find no definition, only if the officer decided what you were doing seemed careless in their opinion.

How does a low pass disregard the rights or safety of others? Is there any proof of this other than the aircraft was lower than normal?
 
Willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others: No, others have no rights 100' above the lake and there was no safety issue.

so as to endanger any person or property: No, there was no danger, there was no safety issue.

Now, if the pilot had an emergency, they might have crashed into the lake and I presume would have tried to avoid harming anyone while doing so, But that is a emergency event, not the action he was taking.

To me, it's an angry Karen that states the pilot ought not to be committing aviation. It is ignorance that flying an airplane over someone isn't a danger to them.
 
Probably more than one pass ...

When I purchased my Tiger we called to check on fuel at one of the FBOs along the way and they stated they're off-site and locked the pump but to make a low pass over a specific farm prior to reaching the field and they would meet us there to unlock the pump.

Anonymous ADS-B was available if that plane was indeed an experimental RV6 ...
 
It is my understanding from working with our local PD that they bring charges related to local or state law, e.g. reckless endangerment, but are pre-empted in terms of enforcing FAA regulations, which is the sole province of federal authority. However, there is no reason the local folks can't forward their evidence to the FAA for federal action, or use FAA standards to make the case for violating local law or code. We just had some local yokels do a below-treetops buzz job abutting a residential area. The local airport authority and PD were not amused.
 
That lake is very narrow. If there were any boats on it at all, it is likely he violated the 500 foot rule from them, and possibly some structures.
 
Lndwarrior said:
That lake is very narrow. If there were any boats on it at all, it is likely he violated the 500 foot rule from them, and possibly some structures.
Click to expand...

Well, so far, it's not an FAA issue. I'd think any competent lawyer could successfully challenge the "reckless operation" charge by showing there was no danger to persons or structures on the lake. However, if the FAA gets involved, they'll probably get him on technical grounds even if he was right down the middle of a 1,000'-wide lake.
 
it's about 1,300 ft wide or more, for most of its length .... down to about 1,000 ft wide for a short portion before the narrow tail at the end that's 500-ish ft wide
(measuring on google maps)

considering slant angle there's room to spare....but yeah, it's probably a bit tight if there were boats

Anything written like that law is really gets my goat.... far to subjective to be any sort of meaningful law. I'm no lawyer...but in my estimation an idiot wrote that one.
 
chemgeek said:
It is my understanding from working with our local PD that they bring charges related to local or state law, e.g. reckless endangerment, but are pre-empted in terms of enforcing FAA regulations, which is the sole province of federal authority.
Click to expand...

This is what I was alluding to in my post (#2) above i.e. if they say he was the "driver" of the aircraft that makes it OK ... :fingerwag: :biggrin:
 
Also, the FAA decides the meaning of 91.119 (b), referring to flight over "congested areas" on a case-by-case basis, and has apparently brought actions for a variety of situations that involve fairly small assemblies of people or structures. If less than 2000 feet horizontally from even a small cluster of individuals or structures, the FAA could likely bring a successful enforcement action. The operator better hope he just gets a citation from the sheriff, and doesn't get the whole thing forwarded to the FAA. Regardless of the outcome, it is not cool, and just makes life more difficult for responsible operators.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Lake-of-the-Woods-aircraft-violation-081722.jpg


Van's Aircraft RV-6/Length: 20.17′
Click to expand...

Ya think he is more than 2000 feet away from structures? The FAA would not be amused...this would almost certainly qualify as a "congested area" in 91.119(b).
 
If he's over "open water", then it's not a "congested area" and 500' applies... which seems just possible IF there are no boats.
 
The title of the article linked "Pilot charged after allegedly flying less than 100 feet over Orange County neighborhood" and the quote taken from the article indicate that he flew over the community named "Lake of the Woods" and not a lake of the same name.
 
Looks like N396DS...ADSB shows it too low for a decent ADSB/radar return for most of the flight that day, but there is one return over Lakes of the North showing 1125 feet. Terrain looks to be about 400 feet in that area...so return is approx 700 AGL (give or take ADSB/GPS errors)...but could be brief zoom climb so who knows.

 
Daleandee said:
That's the humor in it ... he ain't (or rather isn't) a "driver" at all ...
Click to expand...
Well…..one of the comments made (I was working on a USAF contract while Gen Hyten was Space Command CO) was that he’ll never be Chief of Staff of the USAF because he wasn’t “ a driver”, meaning he wasn’t a pilot. Harvard/ROTC guy. He ended up one step below.
 
murphey said:
Well…..one of the comments made (I was working on a USAF contract while Gen Hyten was Space Command CO) was that he’ll never be Chief of Staff of the USAF because he wasn’t “ a driver”, meaning he wasn’t a pilot. Harvard/ROTC guy. He ended up one step below.
Click to expand...

Some pilots are drivers I guess, and some are aviators. But the sheriff made this one up as he didn't have a reckless pilot code in his ticket book ... :dunno:
 
I don’t think they are the same aircraft

Lake-of-the-Woods-aircraft-violation-081722.jpg




5F06A424-4BBB-49E1-9921-FC870F0050D0.jpeg
 
Can't tell for sure - there's a similarity, but no details on the picture. Regardless, the "original" picture seems to be an capture of a computer screen and not there original, probably not admissible in court.

No evidence of a crime of any kind.
 
Of all the places to do a flyover, LOW is probably the worst place you could choose. It is a highly regulated closed gate community with about 2000 homes, a golf course and a lake. Practically every aspect of everything you do in there is controlled by regulations of the home owners association, so most everyone in there has this governmental controlled attitude. So when you say it was likely a Karen that called it in, that whole place is full of Karens!

Now add that Orange County law enforcement and their courts do not follow the laws they are sworn to uphold, but prefer to use them to their own advantage, and once in the court system, and backed up by their own judges, wield an incredible amount of power. Weather it is legal or not, Mr. Jelineck is in for a very difficult time. Not only should he get a lawyer, he needs to get one that cannot be intimidated out of representing him.
 
"Your honor, the engine in my airplane had stopped responding and I was in a forced descent at the time of the evidence-photo exhibit #1. In order to prevent crashing into buildings and playgrounds I aimed for the water, just like I learned from Captain Chesley Sullenberger when he aimed his Airbus 320 for the Hudson River in 2009.
Most gratefully, my engine spooled up about that moment and I did not need to ditch. I was able to climb away safely and land at the airport. My mechanic could find nothing physically wrong with the engine upon return, and he suspects the cause was carburetor icing."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top