Your thoughts - Surrender my certificate for 90 days?

It's a lot less than a 3% chance -- the USSC has never accepted an FAA enforcement case. Given that the USCA has already refused to review it, an appeal to USSC sounds like a waste of money.
 
Take the 90 days. Go fly an ultralight or make a skydive while you are suspended- just because.
 
HERE IS THE TEXT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE ASRS/"NASA" FORM:



I was providing instruction to a commercial pilot applicant (“student’) on this day (Saturday – July 10, 2004 between 10:15AM EDT & 1:15PM EDT). The student was told to prepare for a VFR flight from Martin State Airport (MTN), departing the ADIZ at GOLDA intersection [ENO 271º Radial @ 25.0 DME], landing at Ridgely (RJD) and return, via GOLDA, with airwork to occur during the segment(s) of the flight outside of the ADIZ. Upon arriving at MTN, I was advised by the student that he had obtained a FSS briefing and filed a flight plan for the GOLDA-MTN return flight; no adverse weather was reported during the briefing and no NOTAMS were briefed. We would depart MTN and the ADIZ via GOLDA and using the prescribed procedure[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] with a 1205 transponder code.

We departed MTN at approximately 10:45AM EDT using runway 33, and made a left downwind departure towards GOLDA, after clearing R-4001A, climbing to 2,000’ MSL. Just prior to departing the MTN Class “D” airspace, the Tower (121.30) asked us to verify that we were squawking 1205. The student checked, as did I, and verified that the 1205 code was displayed and that the unit was being interrogated. This information was relayed to MTN Tower. At that point, Tower directed us to monitor Potomac Approach on 126.75, and we did.

Continuing to proceed direct to GOLDA at 2,000’ MSL, we monitored the 126.75 frequency. Once at GOLDA (and clear of the ADIZ), we departed to the south/southeast where we did airwork from 2,000’ MSL up to 4,500” MSL until in the vicinity of RJD. During this time, we simultaneously monitored 126.75 and 121.50. We landed on runway 30 at RJD and took a break until about 12:15PM EDT.

Continuing our flight, we departed runway 30 at RJD, climbing to 2,500’ MSL and heading towards GOLDA. Frequency 121.50 was monitored on departure. About 5 miles south of GOLDA, I contacted Potomac Approach to advise them that we were inbound to MTN and wanted to get the transponder code for operation in the ADIZ to MTN. I was told that there was no flight plan on file. I told the controller that one had been filed earlier in the day, but he said that he didn’t have it and that we’d have to re-file.[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] We circled south of GOLDA while I got things straightened out. I called Leesburg FSS on 122.20 and asked them to help. They found the flight plan and advised that it had been filed with Altoona FSS; therefore, it was transmitted to Leesburg FSS and not to Washington Center where it apparently should have gone.[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] The briefer assisted and obtained the necessary information to file the requisite flight plan. I re-established contact with Potomac Approach on 126.75 and the controller assigned transponder code 4601, which I acknowledged. The 4601 code was selected on the transponder and proper function and operation were noted; the interrogation light was flashing. We proceeded on a direct course from GOLDA to MTN with the necessary deviation to avoid R-4001A but be in a position for a left downwind for runway 15 (as transmitted on ATIS “Q”).

As we came within 10+ miles of MTN, I tried to establish contact with Approach so as to get a frequency change to MTN, but congestion on the frequency continued to be so great that a reply was not received until we were about 4 miles from the airport. We climbed to 2,800’ MSL to avoid MTN’s Class “D” yet stay below the Class “B” airspace. At about this time, the Approach controller responded to my call and asked us where we were. I told him and he saw us but he still did not authorize the frequency change to MTN Tower. We maintained altitude of 2,800’ MSL along a left downwind course for runway 15. At a position where we were about 3 miles north of the airport, Approach authorized the frequency change and we established contact with MTN tower and then descended into the Class “D” airspace. Initially, we received a # 1 landing clearance but we were then told to follow inbound traffic.

Upon landing, at approximately 12:50PM EDT, Tower told us to contact MTN Ground (121.80). Ground advised us that they had a telephone number that needed to be called; we responded that we would contact them by phone after we secured the airplane. Shortly after 1:00PM EDT, I called MTN Tower and they gave me the number of Potomac Approach: (540) 351-6129.

I tried to call Potomac Approach several times, but the line was busy. At about 1:25PM EDT, I established contact with Potomac Approach and spoke with Frank. He told me that our flight had been observed only as a “primary target” (i.e., the transponder as not on or operable and the code was not being received by ATC). I told Frank of the initial MTN inquiry, that we had been in contact with ATC throughout the required portions of our flight and there was no mention of any transponder problems, and that the transponder was functioning normally. Frank advised that a report was going to be filed, ATC tapes and radar plots recorded, and that a review would be conducted by the local Flight Standards District Office (FDSO). Franks asked me for some information such as name, address, telpehone number, date of birth, and pilot certificate number. He told me that I could expect to be contacted by the FSDO within 2-3 weeks.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]RELEVANT RATINGS & EXPERIENCE Private Pilot Certificate Obtained 03/27/1987
Airline Transport Pilot – AMEL

TOTAL TIME: 7,300 hours
Commercial Pilot – ASEL

PIC 6,500 hours
Instrument Rated

CFI 5,500 hours
Certificated Flight Instructor “Gold Seal” In-Type 250+ hours
Airplane Single & Multi-Engine Land
Instrument – Airplane

Past Year 420 hours
Certificated Ground Instructor

Past 6 months 183 hours
Advanced Instrument

Past 90 days 96 hours
FAA Aviation Safety Counselor

Past 30 days 44 hours
Baltimore FSDO

1st Class Medical – May 3, 2004
Last BFR – April 1, 2004
G200 Recurrent Training – Flight Safety International

Employed by:
XXXXXXXXXXX Corporation
Corporate Aircraft – Baltimore MD [MTN]
First Officer – Gulfstream G200 [GALX]

AOPA Member Since 1986 – Member # 912893

NOTE: The pilot has received & provided training at MTN, and primarily flown from there since 1986; certainly, more than familiar with the airspace and procedures . . .


[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Aircraft departing MTN and the ADIZ (along the most direct course) may do so without filing a flight plan by advising MTN Tower of their intentions, monitoring the Potomac Approach frequency as assigned by MTN Tower, and using transponder code 1205 until clear of the ADIZ.


[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] The Controller/frequency was very busy – almost to an “overworked” level – and the Controller was advising a number of pilots that he either did not see them on radar OR that he did not have a flight plan for them.


[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] The student had apparently forgotten that flights to/from airports within the ADIZ were required to file flight plans directly with Leesburg FSS. To add to his misunderstanding, he had always used the 1-800-WX-BRIEF number to file flight plans for operation within the ADIZ and had not had any past problems. I took this opportunity to provide remedial instruction and insure understanding for his future flights.
 
David Moeslein said:
HERE IS THE TEXT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE ASRS/"NASA" FORM:

--SNIP--
Click to expand...

So -- was the transponder not working?

Usually ATC asks, "Confirm squawking 1234..?"

I've had one transponder die enroute IFR in Potomac APP airspace. We worked it out and completed the flight as filed.

There's a missing item in the ASRS report -- "Transponder found inoperative/defective/whatever.."
 
Ron Levy said:
It's a lot less than a 3% chance -- the USSC has never accepted an FAA enforcement case. Given that the USCA has already refused to review it, an appeal to USSC sounds like a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The USSC will only grant cert when there's a major issue of law (as opposed to an issue of fact) that needs to be decided.

Translated, what that means is that unless your case involves some kind of legal question that will significantly change policy nationwide or clarify something that is overly confusing (and a conflict between two cases from the same administrative body doesn't qualify as that), the USSC is not going to hear it.

I'm sorry, but that's just how it is.
 
dmccormack said:
There's a missing item in the ASRS report -- "Transponder found inoperative/defective/whatever.."
Click to expand...
What's missing in the report is ATC saying something like "Squawk code not received" and/or OP or student acknowledging same. Normally if my xponder isn't working/is on stdby/ whatever, the controller doesn't just say "verify squawking ABCD" but makes sure that I know they're not receiving my squawk code. And though I'm a long way from the ADIZ, I have to imagine they'd be even more diligent about that there. So something doesn't quite jibe here. And If that exchange was on the ATC tapes, and not explained or even mentioned in the ASRS report, that would explain why they're insisting the bust was intentional.
 
azure said:
What's missing in the report is ATC saying something like "Squawk code not received" and/or OP or student acknowledging same. Normally if my xponder isn't working/is on stdby/ whatever, the controller doesn't just say "verify squawking ABCD" but makes sure that I know they're not receiving my squawk code. And though I'm a long way from the ADIZ, I have to imagine they'd be even more diligent about that there. So something doesn't quite jibe here. And If that exchange was on the ATC tapes, and not explained or even mentioned in the ASRS report, that would explain why they're insisting the bust was intentional.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I haven't had a transponder fail in the ADIZ, but there has to be procedure for that contingency, otherwise anyone flying in the ADIZ better invest in a backup transponder!
 
You screwed the pooch dude. The BIG mistake you made was not showing up for the hearing. They don't like that one bit, means to them that you have a bad attitude. Your student showed up.... The whole thing about you being an unfirm 74 year old, I'm sure that stuck in their craw. I've been to court a couple of times in my life, and got away with plenty because I treated the system with respect, and I own my actions as my own, good and bad, I don't try to deflect or pawn off my responsibilities. Once I got out of a stack of tickets, 120 days in jail and $10,000 of fines worth (cops don't like following you at over 120mph for an hour half the width of California) because I showed up in court in a suit and when my name was called I stood up and said "Yes Your Honor, here." After being there through 3 hrs of people in their work clothes with paint and spackling compound, waistbands near their knees answering "Yo", the judge looked at me, turned to his clerk and said "See there? He called me 'Your Honor'. Dismissed," and called the next name. Is that inconsistent and even unfair application of the law? You bet it is, and I'm damned glad that judges have that latitude available, I do my best to use it to my benefit.

You were the CFI, you hold an ATP (whether you like it or not, think it's fair or not, the higher your rating, the higher level of accountability and standards of operation you're held to), you logged PIC, you're f----ed. Take your 90 day rip and sin no more. If you would have showed up without a lawyer, you would have probably gotten off with a 709 ride. You failed to ensure that the student was doing things correctly, things you were expected to know as an ATP, and instruct and correct your student on as a CFI providing instruction. Not only did you not earn your pay as a pilot, you didn't earn your pay as an instructor either, so now you've got a bill to settle. Quit wasting the taxpayers money fighting it. If you want to be a professional pilot, then start acting like a professional. As professionals, we own our mistakes. You haven't said "I screwed up", you're blaming this on the FAA and NTSB and your student. Sorry, YOU'RE the professional here, YOU'RE the responsible party. Don't come around crying because someone else got off and you didn't. I bet the other guy showed up at his hearing. I can't believe you didn't show, and I don't care if you were recovering from surgery. Also, next time you need a lawyer, find one that knows WTF they're doing. If you really couldn't be at the hearing due to medical conditions, you should have gotten a continuance until you could make it.

Take your 90 days off and use it to contemplate the meaning of "Professional".

Sorry I'm not a cheerleader, but as an ATP/CFI, you really need to take responsibility for your failures, and you failed miserably on this whole thing and you want to put it on everyone but yourself, and that just doesn't cut it.
 
I agree that there is something odd about the story. If the transponder wasn't working the tower would have said something right after your first takeoff. I think you mentioned in an earlier thread about the same subject that your attorney didn't want to use the transponder as a defense but instead wanted to use the use the theory that you were not PIC. I thought that was a mistake but there's nothing you can do about it now. Also, if you believed that you were not PIC, why were you the one who called the phone number?
 
So - from the reading of the ASRS report, and the FAA's report, lets see if I have this pictured right:

You departed from a Class D airport inside the ADIZ, properly contacted ATC the whole time. The first controller advised that he was not receiving your xponder.

You departed the ADIZ, the way you're supposed to, did your practice stuff outside, and then decided to come back in.

Your flight plan was not on file, so you contacted the proper authority to get the flight plan given to the proper controller, who then cleared you into the ADIZ.

You stayed with the controller until properly handed off to the Class D tower, and followed his instructions as well.

So - at what point does ATC get to trick a pilot into hanging himself by allowing him into the ADIZ despite not receiving the xponder? Shouldn't ATC have declined reentry?

This sounds fishy, and once again, I think the FAA is putting the screws to David. I rescind my comments on his student however, because he was screwed too.
 
SkyHog said:
So - at what point does ATC get to trick a pilot into hanging himself by allowing him into the ADIZ despite not receiving the xponder? Shouldn't ATC have declined reentry?

This sounds fishy, and once again, I think the FAA is putting the screws to David. I rescind my comments on his student however, because he was screwed too.
Click to expand...

An incomplete story always sounds fishy.
 
dmccormack said:
An incomplete story always sounds fishy.
Click to expand...

There is very little in common between the stories told in the ASRS report and the appeals assertions.

Sorry, but this is a royal screw up that the pilot/CFI/ATP has spent 5 years trying to get out of on technicalities. What a waste of time and money.
 
Henning said:
You screwed the pooch dude. The BIG mistake you made was not showing up for the hearing. They don't like that one bit, means to them that you have a bad attitude. Your student showed up.... The whole thing about you being an unfirm 74 year old, I'm sure that stuck in their craw...
Click to expand...

In the earlier thread on this subject, the OP said that this was all done on advice of counsel. I was critical of his attorney's advice, but not many people agreed with me.

On the Law and Order TV show, they sometimes talk about convictions being overturned on the grounds of "ineffective assistance of counsel," but maybe that only works on TV. In any case it sounds like it would be a waste of time and money trying to get the Supreme Court to take this case.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
...

On the Law and Order TV show, they sometimes talk about convictions being overturned on the grounds of "ineffective assistance of counsel," but maybe that only works on TV. In any case it sounds like it would be a waste of time and money trying to get the Supreme Court to take this case.
Click to expand...

Only in criminal cases, and the standard is twofold: 1) the attorney's performance must be so deficient that no other attorney would have done it; and 2) there must be a reasonable likelihood that, but for that deficient performance, the result would have been different.
 
These are civil cases not criminal.

The FAA does not have to prove intent, only that you undertook the prohibited action (of course that sidesteps the whole BS definition of "inadvertent" that they are applying in ADIZ cases.)
 
SkyHog said:
So - from the reading of the ASRS report, and the FAA's report, lets see if I have this pictured right:

You departed from a Class D airport inside the ADIZ, properly contacted ATC the whole time. The first controller advised that he was not receiving your xponder.

You departed the ADIZ, the way you're supposed to, did your practice stuff outside, and then decided to come back in.

Your flight plan was not on file, so you contacted the proper authority to get the flight plan given to the proper controller, who then cleared you into the ADIZ.

You stayed with the controller until properly handed off to the Class D tower, and followed his instructions as well.

So - at what point does ATC get to trick a pilot into hanging himself by allowing him into the ADIZ despite not receiving the xponder? Shouldn't ATC have declined reentry?

This sounds fishy, and once again, I think the FAA is putting the screws to David. I rescind my comments on his student however, because he was screwed too.
Click to expand...


Read the entire NTSB transcript, the story there and the one filed on the NASA form didn't even happen in the same galaxy. The FAA produced witnesses and evidence, Radar tapes, ATC Audio.... The defendant produced....Zilch, nothing, nada, bupkis. He provided an affirmative defense (the NASA form) yet did absolutely nothing to establish that defense (an affirmative defense means you have to prove that your assertion is valid, rather than the prosecutor having to prove that it's invalid.). The he hired some bush league attorney to represent him when he would have been much better served going into the hearing and say "Sorry, I screwed up, I have a long history with this student and he's very good. It was advanced training, I didn't even think to check out what I took for granted he knew, Lesson Learned there, and as for the transponder still on Standby, I have absolutely no excuse there, I should have checked that." With that course of action, he probably would have skated quite lightly. Not showing up and on top of that sending a lawyer who's basically an idiot, well, what did he expect would happen? If you don't show respect, you don't get respect, simple as that and the Judge has the power to say "If you don't care enough to be here, you must not take this seriously, let me show you how seriously we take this". This has already burned through at least $100,000 of taxpayer money, time for it to end.
 
Palmpilot said:
In the earlier thread on this subject, the OP said that this was all done on advice of counsel.
Click to expand...

Well, I hate to be the one to say it, then he's as stupid as his lawyer. This is Administrative Law crap. Nobody is going to prison, nobody is losing a million dollars. You're almost always better off representing yourself with the proper decorum and demeanor. The error was committed, Admit, Apologize and Atone. The Triple A of going to court, "I screwed up, I'm Sorry, This will never happen again I have learned..." Is that so bleeding difficult?
 
Henning said:
The error was committed, Admit, Apologize and Atone. The Triple A of going to court, "I screwed up, I'm Sorry, This will never happen again I have learned..." Is that so bleeding difficult?
Click to expand...
That has always been my feeling too, particularly if you know in your heart that you screwed up, but you'll see plenty of advice out there to deny everything and get a lawyer. I think there are times when you need a lawyer, like when you are being falsely accused, but that's not clear in this situation. The thing is that we only see one side of the case since the OP, on the advice of his lawyer, didn't try to defend himself against the original charge. The only thing we have is the ASRS form which doesn't correspond with the FAA's evidence.

The other thought I had for the OP is that even if you go to the Supreme Court and win there still may be consequences. The case will probably be written up in aviation magazines etc. Even though your violation will be overturned you'll still be the one who tried to put the blame on your student. How is that going to look to a potential employer? It wasn't like you were a CFI passenger on a pleasure flight. You were actually giving the guy instruction.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What is the "Court of Special Appeals"? Never heard of it. And if its the US Court of Appeals, I don't understand "refused to be reviewed by."
Click to expand...
Let me straighten it out verbatim:

It is the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

During the September Term, 2008 and filed on May 5, 2009, the issued a JUDGMENT that said: "ORDERED that the petition for review is denied".

Hope that clarifies matters.
 
Mr. Henning: May I ask you one simple question? That is ---- given the same set of circumstances with your career on the line, would you not take the advice of counsel even though you thought it may have been the wrong approach. By the way, the counsel who I retained was by no means "bush league"; in fact, he came highly recommended by AOPA and well respected by the local FSDO, not to mention his demonstrated experience with these matters.
 
Everskyward said:
That has always been my feeling too, particularly if you know in your heart that you screwed up, but you'll see plenty of advice out there to deny everything and get a lawyer.
Click to expand...
The bigger problem is thinking that "deny everything" and "get a lawyer" go together. A lawyer's primary role is as advisor and sometimes the advice is, as Henning put it, "Admit, Apologize and Atone." Other times it's to do battle.

And, FWIW, David's lawyer is not an idiot. Jay Fred is well known with a good reputation and a lot of experience. And it's none of our business what may or may not have been discussed between attortney and client.
 
David Moeslein said:
During the September Term, 2008 and filed on May 5, 2009, the issued a JUDGMENT that said: "ORDERED that the petition for review is denied".
Click to expand...
Just to clarify for the folks out there who might be interested, that wasn't a "refusal to review."

It was a judgment by the Court of Appeals denying the petition for review based on the examination of the documents filed in the appeal – the so-called "Appendix" (the record of the proceedings before the ALJ and the NTSB and the briefs of counsel.
 
David Moeslein said:
Let me straighten it out verbatim:

It is the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

During the September Term, 2008 and filed on May 5, 2009, the issued a JUDGMENT that said: "ORDERED that the petition for review is denied".

Hope that clarifies matters.
Click to expand...

If the D.C. Circuit issued its order on 5/5, you've got 90 days after that, with day 1 being 5/6, to file a petition for cert with the USSC.

I don't know what's required to be with the petition. No idea if it's merely a notice, or whether you're required to have a supporting brief and a record filed.

Either way, you're running short on time, because if you're going to send something to the United States Supreme Court, it had better be right. Not that it shouldn't be in any other court, but the USSC doesn't waste time with petitioners that can't follow the rules or make only a half-[bleeped] effort.

The rules of the USSC are available on its website.
 
OK.

I just read the first three pages of the opinion in your OP. After reading that, here are my thoughts.

This was incident in 2004. The ALJ's opinion was apparently in 2007. This has already been going on for ~ 5 years, and it's been 2 years since the initial decision in your case. You take it to the USSC, and even if it grants cert, you're talking at the very minimum another year, likely two, before you have any final resolution. In the meantime, you've got this hanging over your head. So, that's consideration #1.

Consideration #2 is that the USSC is an appellate court. As an appellate court, the USSC will not review the ALJ's findings of fact unless the ALJ abused his/her discretion. Translated, that means that the ALJ's findings of fact will stand unless there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the record to support his findings.

What the USSC will do (again, assuming the justices decide to review your case) is to review the law applied by the lower bodies. And that's it. So, unless you have an argument based on an interpretation of law (rather than facts), you're not going to be heard by the USSC.

That's the legal perspective.

I'm sorry I don't have any insight into your specific case, but it's late, I'm tired, I don't do anything with aviation law, and it's been 3 years since I've been anywhere near the ADIZ in anything but a commercial airliner. So you wouldn't want to listen to anything I told you in that regard, because I'd probably tell you something boneheaded about it being legal to drive your plane on I-95 during rush hour, so long as you only hit New Yorkers and had filed a flight plan.

Whatever you decide, best of luck.
 
Last edited:
David Moeslein said:
Mr. Henning: May I ask you one simple question? That is ---- given the same set of circumstances with your career on the line, would you not take the advice of counsel even though you thought it may have been the wrong approach. By the way, the counsel who I retained was by no means "bush league"; in fact, he came highly recommended by AOPA and well respected by the local FSDO, not to mention his demonstrated experience with these matters.
Click to expand...

I have been called to the carpet by the USCG and I make way more money on my ticket they issue me than you ever will with your ATP. I have never sought counsel. I walked away unscathed. It's all in how you present yourself. S--t happens, everyone including the prosecutor, adjudicator and administrator knows it. None of us is perfect. I admit my errors, review the mitigating circumstances without using them as an excuse, I always hold all responsibility on myself, rather I use them to show that I thought about the event long and hard and realize them and that I will be better prepared with knowledge going forward. THAT is what they want to hear. They want to know that you are serious, smart and responsible and that you have beat yourself up learning your lesson. They like to see you being severe on yourself, that makes them feel safe that you have learned and will not repeat the offense. You committed a cardinal faux paux by not being there to make eye contact with the judge and hang your head in shame and use other subservient and shamed body language (If you haven't ever, read a book by Desmond Moore I believe, called "The Naked Ape"). What you did (your lawyer represents you, therefor everything he does represents on you) was run and hide trying to use every lame excuse under the sun to deny guilt, including using an affirmative defense without being there to affirm it, WTF were you thinking with that stroke of brilliance? I know, I know, your lawyer.... Well, if that's all true your lawyer is an idiot, and he's not bushleague by any means, he is a Major League Idiot. Dude is Professionaly Stupid, gold medal winner at that and if he was recommended to you by AOPA legal, I'm damn glad I don't waste any money on them either. If you took the 90 rip right off the bat (and if you showed up in court yourself you probably wouldn't have got that), you would have done less damage to your career than you have at this point. If you would have, a future employer would have looked at it, you could have explained, you look like a man who takes responsibility for his actions, and that would be that. Now you look like a whiny scapegoat seeking worm who tries as best as he can to blame others for what happens, and as a person who is reviewing over 120 applications right now for my relief captain on what amounts to a dream job, I'll tell you right now, yours would go into the bin. I want people with integrity, not excuses. Got an accident or violation on your record? Tell me about it. I also do investigative and expert witness work for insurance companies on maritime accidents. Everybody knows s--t happens. It's how you deal with it that makes the big difference.

BTW, remember this when you seek advice from anyone for any reason: 80% of the human population, regardless of race, creed, color, nationality, gender sexual orientation or occupation are stupid. Also remember that a major qualifier in a competency hearing in court is "Is the defendant able to assist in his own defense?" If I had a lawyer who advised me not to show up at the hearing and then pulled the "74 year old, oh I have 2 clients, him and his dad..." crap (I guaranty you that's what bought you 90 days instead of 30, that ****ed the judge right off. Judges do not like when people try to BS them... Does the lawyer represent your dad BTW, or was he referred as you say above by AOPA?) I'd be suing the lawyer for lost income. Your lawyer f---ed you. But then, you hired him.

Quit being a whiny ***** and own your mistake. You screwed up on so many levels in this, I question your competency to command an aircraft, and you're still making excuses! Quit that...

Go ahead, say it out loud, "I F---ed this whole thing up big time!!!" Own it, be a man about it and take your 90 days. You'll be surprised how much better you feel about yourself.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The bigger problem is thinking that "deny everything" and "get a lawyer" go together. A lawyer's primary role is as advisor and sometimes the advice is, as Henning put it, "Admit, Apologize and Atone." Other times it's to do battle.

And, FWIW, David's lawyer is not an idiot. Jay Fred is well known with a good reputation and a lot of experience. And it's none of our business what may or may not have been discussed between attortney and client.
Click to expand...

Jay Fred, thanks, I'll know to avoid him, he's an over paid con artist who tries to get by by bull s---ing the court, and he doesn't even do it well. If he did all this because it was the only thing he could think of because his client couldn't admit to doing anything wrong, he should have dropped the case on ethical grounds. The whole lying to the court about the "You got the wrong guy... my client, my clients dad..." all that crap, that reeks of of a lack of competence and ethics. I read all 28 pages and came away feeling slimed and ashamed of being an American and a human.
 
Last edited:
Trapper John said:
BTDT, but I think it's hard to excuse in this case where they know they are taking off from within the ADIZ. That, to me, is a little different from taking off from dogpatch and forgetting to turn on 1200...

Doing it twice in one day probably didn't help, either.
Click to expand...

From/to a controlled field (KMTN) inside the former ADIZ. The ADIZ procedures were a year old at the time and both pilots were familiarized with them. As asinine as they were (though they're now codified as the DC SFRA), they were not difficult to comply with.

Dave, I think your best bet is to take the suspension - unless you want to take one for the rest of us dealing with the ADIZ/SFRA and, while you're at it, try to get Congress to hold the FAA to task for never once presenting its case for the ADIZ to them as required by law. Remember, this is the same crowd who cowered in fear when a C150 strayed over the city.
 
Henning said:
Jay Fred, thanks, I'll know to avoid him, he's an over paid con artist who tries to get by by bull s---ing the court, and he doesn't even do it well. If he did all this because it was the only thing he could think of because his client couldn't admit to doing anything wrong, he should have dropped the case on ethical grounds. The whole lying to the court about the "You got the wrong guy... my client, my clients dad..." all that crap, that reeks of of a lack of competence and ethics. I read all 28 pages and came away feeling slimed and ashamed of being an American and a human.
Click to expand...

What are you, old school?

:D

Every so often I miss the Army, where the Maximum Effective Range of an Excuse is 0.0 Meters.

One time I did my company a favor on a ridiculously long movement -- which would have ended up crawling along I-95 at 4 PM on Friday.

I ignored the Battalion Movement order and issued my FRAGO, directing the convoy to head North on I-83, therefore bypassing the traffic and getting the soldiers back home about half a day earlier.

The BN SGT Major hated my guts (he liked shiny stuff for inspections, I preferred dirty equipment that was used), so when he found out he squealed to the BN CO.

I got a call about 6 PM, "Get down here to BN HQ ASAP!"

I drove the hour and a half, reported to the LTC.

He told me to sit down, "This will probably cost you your command..."

"I serve at your pleasure, Sir. Whatever you think is right."

"Get out of here."

I served as Company Commander for another year.




So -- I agree -- man-up and get it over with.
 
BTW, agree or disagree with what happened, Jay Fred is an idiot, and will never represent me.

Really?? Make them present the case and hope for the best? Yowza. I would probably at least try to report the ABA for that, because NO lawyer should take that tact without some special knowledge that its going to work (and a hunch ain't gonna cut it here).

I'm with Henning. Jay Fred's a moron that should never represent anyone ever again.
 
jesse said:
I'm not quite willing to jump to conclusions and call the lawyer an idiot based on some questionable information on a forum. Who knows what actually happened. Lets try and be fair to the guy. We have no idea what actually went down.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Jay+Fred%22+idiot&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=5TZlSg8c0wI
Click to expand...

Any lawyer that says "Hey, lets go in and make them present a case" is an idiot.

I'm not big on questioning a lawyer's intentions, because they usually have a bigger plan. But that's unreasonable.

If Jay Fred wants to sue me for that, he can. At least I'm not going against a competent lawyer.
 
SkyHog said:
Any lawyer that says "Hey, lets go in and make them present a case" is an idiot.

I'm not big on questioning a lawyer's intentions, because they usually have a bigger plan. But that's unreasonable.

If Jay Fred wants to sue me for that, he can. At least I'm not going against a competent lawyer.
Click to expand...

How do you know that is what he said?
 
midlifeflyer said:
it's none of our business what may or may not have been discussed between attortney and client.
Click to expand...
That's true except that David has asked for our opinions at least a couple times and it's hard to have an opinion, at least about the original violation, without the whole picture. The way I understand it maybe there was no defense possible of that part so they went for the "who is PIC" angle. Or maybe I am way off base. In any case I think it's gone on way too long with not much hope of it being overturned and if it was me I would not pursue it any further.
 
jesse said:
How do you know that is what he said?
Click to expand...

Well, David had a pretty decent shot at this case had he appeared. Why else would he have not appeared?

I'm not ready to call David a liar here....
 
SkyHog said:
Well, David had a pretty decent shot at this case had he appeared. Why else would he have not appeared?

I'm not ready to call David a liar here....
Click to expand...
And..How do we know that the lawyer didn't advise that David appear? Sorry, I'm not going to call a lawyer an idiot based on a one-sided story from a man that can't man up and admit he ****ed up.
 
Just insert "If the facts are as reported here" at the beginning of every post.

See? All better now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top