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

Bug must have got in the static port.

How would they prove who the actual "driver" was unless they met them as they landed.

Guys like this no ruin all my hobbies.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
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.
Click to expand...

wow, judges that are part of the police department and intimidate lawyers into no representing the accused.
 
EdFred said:
I didn't think local/state got to have statutes regarding airspace.
Click to expand...
I've read on the internet -- so it must be true -- that the FAA claims sole jurisdiction all the way down to the ground, and that courts have agreed.
 
I wonder if a very good aviation lawyer could somehow get his fees extracted from the sheriff here and create a good rap on the knuckles for not staying in his lane.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I've read on the internet -- so it must be true -- that the FAA claims sole jurisdiction all the way down to the ground, and that courts have agreed.
Click to expand...

I am under the impression the FAA is a regulatory agency. If they had sole jurisdiction that would make it impossible for any crime committed in an airborne aircraft to be prosecuted, no?
 
If this stands , whats to keep a uniformed LEO that sees you practicing steep turns around a point and decides that's dangerous and wants to lock you up ?
 
squincher said:
I am under the impression the FAA is a regulatory agency. If they had sole jurisdiction that would make it impossible for any crime committed in an airborne aircraft to be prosecuted, no?
Click to expand...
*shrug* Someone who knows may chime in, but it seems like most crimes committed in airplanes wind up being pursued by the FBI? If a passenger assaults another passenger at FL320 over Harlan County, KY, I don’t think the Harlan County Sheriff is the one who makes the arrest. Since the FAA claims to own the airspace down to the ground, 100 feet is no different from 32,000.
 
the dude said:
If this stands , whats to keep a uniformed LEO that sees you practicing steep turns around a point and decides that's dangerous and wants to lock you up ?
Click to expand...
I've often wondered about S-turning while taxiing. My airplane is blind forward on the ground, hence I S-turn on the taxiway. Is some LEO going to pull me over suspecting I'm under the influence...?

Ron Wanttaja
 
To paraphrase a song from long ago:
"Outta the plane long hair!"

wanttaja said:
I've often wondered about S-turning while taxiing. My airplane is blind forward on the ground, hence I S-turn on the taxiway. Is some LEO going to pull me over suspecting I'm under the influence...?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

A couple of years ago, I flew the Cub into KPOU (Poughkeepsie Regional) and taxied to the diner, "S" turning all the way.
When I walked into the diner, some super offended nose dragger pilot publicly and loudly accosted me, in front of everyone there, for my "childish and stupid" performance.
Before I even had a chance to open my mouth, the waitress jumped in and reamed this guy, for being a jerk, and ignorant of the requirements for safely moving a Cub on the ground.
At which point most everyone there (who were there to see me) joined in.
He left in a hurry.

Gated communities with lakes: There is one just off the flight path for DXR.
Used to be if you turned to base a little short, not even going over the lake, before you turned final the guy in the tower would jump ugly about it.
Turns out he lived there.
And was the President of the HOA.
I should fly over and find out if it's still an HOA no fly zone.
 
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...

Federal Courts have recognized three types of preemption: 1) Express preemption, 2) conflict preemption, and 3) field preemption. Express preemption is where congress passes a statute that expressly preempts state law. Conflict preemption is where there is a conflict between federal and state law such that it is impossible to comply with both the state and the federal law or where compliance with state or local law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Field preemption exists where federal law so thoroughly "occupies a legislative field’ as to make it reasonable to infer that Congress left no room for the states to act.”

State or local attempts to regulate the conduct of flight is probably preempted under field preemption, and could potentially be preempted under conflict preemption. "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States." 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1). Federal cases finding field preemption include City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973) (finding preemption of local noise ordinance.); Command Helicopters, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 691 F.Supp. 1148 (N.D. Ill.)(finding preemption of local ordinance that required helicopters used in hoisting operations to be dual engine.); and Int'l Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F.Supp 3d. 767 (N.D. Ill)(finding that local regulation of aerobatic flight and attempts by local authorities to enforce FAA regulations were preempted.)

EDIT: From the new article: "The Orange County Sheriff’s Office is asking if anyone who has any information that may contribute to the case to contact Deputy Ron Kesner or Major Michael LaCasse at 540-672-1200." Maybe I should call the Sheriff and let him know the above.
 
Last edited:
the dude said:
If this stands , whats to keep a uniformed LEO that sees you practicing steep turns around a point and decides that's dangerous and wants to lock you up ?
Click to expand...

If you do the turns over a residential lake at 100 feet I suspect you might get arrested. Why defend the pilot. It’s idiots like the guy in the pic that cause ever increasing regulations on ALL pilots.
 
Jeff767 said:
If you do the turns over a residential lake at 100 feet I suspect you might get arrested. Why defend the pilot. It’s idiots like the guy in the pic that cause ever increasing regulations on ALL pilots.
Click to expand...
Because we are a nation of laws.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"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."
Click to expand...

I like the way you think............
 
Jeff767 said:
If you do the turns over a residential lake at 100 feet I suspect you might get arrested. Why defend the pilot. It’s idiots like the guy in the pic that cause ever increasing regulations on ALL pilots.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be defending the pilot, but the Sheriff is outside of his authority. The point "the dude" was making, is you don't want this to set a precedent for local law enforcement to start prosecuting "reckless operation of an aircraft". Most have zero knowledge of aviation, and could make a case about a lot of things that are perfectly legal from the FAA's standpoint. Imagine if a local LEO decided that practicing turns around a point at 1000 feet agl was harassment of someone on the ground. We pilots don't need that kind of headache.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I wouldn't be defending the pilot, but the Sheriff is outside of his authority. The point "the dude" was making, is you don't want this to set a precedent for local law enforcement to start prosecuting "reckless operation of an aircraft". Most have zero knowledge of aviation, and could make a case about a lot of things that are perfectly legal from the FAA's standpoint. Imagine if a local LEO decided that practicing turns around a point at 1000 feet agl was harassment of someone on the ground. We pilots don't need that kind of headache.
Click to expand...

This exactly. The Northern District of Illinois expounded on this in its opinion finding preemption:

The most obvious peril created by doing so is the uneven enforcement of nationally applicable regulations throughout the national airspace. Another concern is the total lack of aviation training or expertise possessed by those empowered under the Morris ordinance to, in effect, enforce the FAA and its companion regulations; the Morris building inspectors and firefighters, for example, have no business making or interpreting federal aviation policy, which is what occurs when they are permitted to exercise discretion over the enforcement of FAA regulations.

The implicit premise of the City's assertion of authority to enforce the FAA is that it controls the airspace above the city limits. That premise is unfounded. There is no “City of Morris” airspace. See 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a) (“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.”) Yet, the City purports to possess the power to regulate at least some fraction of the national airspace by discretionarily enforcing the FAA. That is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress that there should be uniform national policy with respect to air safety.​

Int'l Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F. Supp. 3d 767, 782 (N.D. Ill. 2014)
 
giphy-8-1.gif
 
azpilot said:
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???
Click to expand...
Sounds like he made someone spill their coffee, if it's the judge I wouldn't count on it being thrown out.

I don't see how he endangered anyone's life but he almost certainly ruined their calm, peaceful morning.
 
mandm said:
And how did they calculate the height?
Click to expand...
Errantly. He's almost certainly below 500' but not below 100.

I wonder what this sheriff would do if someone on the lake bought an amphib?
 
Salty said:
is undefined enough to use just about any time you'd like to.
Click to expand...
"How exactly did I endanger the safety of anyone present your honor"?

Stunned silence.
 
bflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which of course could happen at any altitude over the lake.

I'd hate to be the prosecutor trying to make this case, my best is they are hoping for some sort of quiet plea deal to make it go away.
 
The judge could (as some on this board have accused the FAA of doing) is to ignore reason and common sense, and just do what he/she wants. My courtroom, my jail, my police - what are you going to do about it?

images
 
Racerx said:
Bug must have got in the static port.

How would they prove who the actual "driver" was unless they met them as they landed.

Guys like this no ruin all my hobbies.
Click to expand...
Proofread/edit might be in order.
 
Jeff767 said:
If you do the turns over a residential lake at 100 feet I suspect you might get arrested. Why defend the pilot. It’s idiots like the guy in the pic that cause ever increasing regulations on ALL pilots.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the exercise of our rights irritates other people. That's no reason to cease exercising or defending them.

I live in an open carry state and am an instructor so I open carry a good bit. On a few occasions I've been accosted by people who were upset that I was displaying a firearm in public.

I usually reply with something to the effect that I'm offended by their ignorance of the law and desire to infringe upon my rights.

If this had happened in Texas the guy might have a problem because we have a statute expressly protecting the, "right to peaceful enjoyment of our property" but VA has no such law that I can find.

This gets into the realm of fisherman being angered because skiers come by making wakes that disturb their fishing.

There are a whole lot of things more worthy of upset.

Freedom is messy and sometimes it means people are going to do things we find irritating.
 
WDD said:
The judge could (as some on this board have accused the FAA of doing) is to ignore reason and common sense, and just do what he/she wants. My courtroom, my jail, my police - what are you going to do about it?

images
Click to expand...
That would be a call for political activism to raise enough money for the appeals and to remove them from office in the next election.
 
O2 Birddog said:
Sometimes the exercise of our rights irritates other people. That's no reason to cease exercising or defending them.

This gets into the realm of fisherman being angered because skiers come by making wakes that disturb their fishing.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I was talking with a chopper pilot yesterday that is doing some tree trimming in the area. He was telling a story of working along a tree line when he came upon a deer stand and one of the guys in the stand pointing a rifle at him ... :dunno:
 
O2 Birddog said:
Errantly. He's almost certainly below 500' but not below 100.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the sheriff should have a dog in this fight, but even accounting for some perspective from the elevated deck he is taking the video from…

D65459D2-8066-4323-A803-20B84D92519E.png
 
PPC1052 said:
This exactly. The Northern District of Illinois expounded on this in its opinion finding preemption:

The most obvious peril created by doing so is the uneven enforcement of nationally applicable regulations throughout the national airspace. Another concern is the total lack of aviation training or expertise possessed by those empowered under the Morris ordinance to, in effect, enforce the FAA and its companion regulations; the Morris building inspectors and firefighters, for example, have no business making or interpreting federal aviation policy, which is what occurs when they are permitted to exercise discretion over the enforcement of FAA regulations.

The implicit premise of the City's assertion of authority to enforce the FAA is that it controls the airspace above the city limits. That premise is unfounded. There is no “City of Morris” airspace. See 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a) (“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.”) Yet, the City purports to possess the power to regulate at least some fraction of the national airspace by discretionarily enforcing the FAA. That is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress that there should be uniform national policy with respect to air safety.​

Int'l Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 v. City of Morris, 76 F. Supp. 3d 767, 782 (N.D. Ill. 2014)
Click to expand...

In that case, the municipality was trying to prohibit behavior that was allowed by the FAA. Making up their own rules contradictory to FAA regulations. That isn't the case here. States codifying and enforcing federal regulations is common in many areas, the trucking industry probably being the largest example.

Let me ask this, and I'm really asking because I don't know the answer, not trying to make an oblique point. If I was to buy an airplane and just go fly around without a PPL, who could take any action against me if the state couldn't prosecute? I wouldn't have any certificate the FAA could suspend or revoke, but my state has a statute requiring pilots to be licensed and could put me in jail. Would I even fall under "regulated entities and persons" without an FAA certificate of some sort?
 
Last edited:
Piperonca said:
That a Globe Swift?
Click to expand...

“Low-flying aircraft. Photo credit: Orange County Sheriff’s Office”

“XXXX faces an Aug. 26 court date. According to Federal Aviation Administration records, he received a private pilot certificate in 2014 and is fractional owner of a 1993 RV-6 two-seater, single-engine aircraft.”

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

https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-...es-pilot-with-reckless-operation-of-aircraft/
 
Hey, @PPC1052 ,

“The Orange County Sheriff’s Office is asking if anyone who has any information that may contribute to the case to contact Deputy Ron Kesner or Major Michael LaCasse at 540-672-1200.”

Go for it!
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
“Low-flying aircraft. Photo credit: Orange County Sheriff’s Office”

“XXXX faces an Aug. 26 court date. According to Federal Aviation Administration records, he received a private pilot certificate in 2014 and is fractional owner of a 1993 RV-6 two-seater, single-engine aircraft.”

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

https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-...es-pilot-with-reckless-operation-of-aircraft/
Click to expand...
Vertical fin as it appears in that photo is a ringer though.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
“Low-flying aircraft. Photo credit: Orange County Sheriff’s Office”

“XXXX faces an Aug. 26 court date. According to Federal Aviation Administration records, he received a private pilot certificate in 2014 and is fractional owner of a 1993 RV-6 two-seater, single-engine aircraft.”

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

https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-...es-pilot-with-reckless-operation-of-aircraft/
Click to expand...
The aircraft in that photo is not a RV-6. At least not if it was built to plans.
 
Salty said:
That's not how it works.
Click to expand...
Not saying 40’ is the number, but I didn’t have enough room on my screen to stack 3 more 20’ bars under there to get over 100’.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Not saying 40’ is the number, but I didn’t have enough room on my screen to stack 3 more 20’ bars under there to get over 100’.
Click to expand...
This really isn't a 500' Elk either.

iu


Neither is this:

wta_1433_NeilJones.jpg-1536x1152.jpeg


Perspective and focal length can be very deceptive.
 
Salty said:
The aircraft in that photo is not a RV-6. At least not if it was built to plans.
Click to expand...
That picture is so grainy, with such poor resolution there's no way to tell what make aircraft it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top