Idiot Sherriff Arrests 70 Year Old Glider Pilot......For Just Flying

[Floatsflyer]

A South Carolina Sherriff by the name of J.Wayne Byrd, in an obvious and desperate attempt to live up to his surname, arrested 70 year old glider pilot Robin Fleming for--are you ready for this--flying through a non-existant no-fly zone. Fleming was legally flying through airspace around a nuclear power plant.

He was ordered to land, arrested and held in jail for more than a day and charged with--wait for it--breach of the peace in a glider!!

Now, the idiot Sherriff graduates to moronic status. He calls in the FAA, TSA, Homeland Security and the FBI(beginning to sound a lot like Alice's Restaurant don't y'all think-litterin' and flyin') who all eventually realize that local law enforcement knows nothin' 'bout the complexities of airspace and non-existant airspace violations. But shouldn't the alphabet soup of organizations have been able to tell the "Mayberry Marvel" all this before they actually went to the scene of the non-crime.


Time to lawyer-up Mr.Fleming and I hope you enjoy your new motorglider with the proceeds!!

[Bill Greenwood]

Aren't nuclear power plants a restricted area, though I don't know how far out or above the restriction would extend?

[Floatsflyer]

Aren't nuclear power plants a restricted area, though I don't know how far out or above the restriction would extend?

Answer in general is "no" and in this particular case there are no restrictive indications on the area VFR chart.

[Dana]

Aren't nuclear power plants a restricted area, though I don't know how far out or above the restriction would extend?

No. Pilots are "requested" to "avoid loitering" in the area of a nuke plant, but there's no prohibition.

I used to fly my PPG from a field directly across the river from a nuke plant. Only once did a cop (who just happened to be passing by) stop by after I landed, "just wanted to make sure you weren't flying near the plant." I wasn't (that day), but explained to him that there was no restriction. The friendly conversation ended with "that's really cool, where did you get it, how much does it cost", etc.

Of course at the breathtaking speed of a PPG it's hard to do anything but "loiter"... :)

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't think there has to be anything marked on a chart. For instance it is illegal to fly over large outdoor gatherings like NCAA football games just like U of Colo. 5 miles sought of Boulder at game time.

I really think it is the same with nuclear plants. Check further on it, and I would like to see your source for this story.

Thanks.

[Floatsflyer]

I don't think there has to be anything marked on a chart. For instance it is illegal to fly over large outdoor gatherings like NCAA football games just like U of Colo. 5 miles sought of Boulder at game time.

I really think it is the same with nuclear plants. Check further on it, and I would like to see your source for this story.

Thanks.


Yes it does have to be on a chart(are we supposed to guess?) Anything temporary must be by notam. You check further on it if you don't believe me or Dana above who quotes the actual language.

It should be illegal to fly over or even be on the ground within 5 miles of the U of Colo football team--they're worse than horrible!

I take great exception to you questioning my veracity. Do you think I make this s**t up? I'm not Lance Armstrong or Manti T'eo! In this one instance only I will provide the source but don't you ever, ever again ask me to verify a news story. AOPA Live This Week good enough? You could look it up.

[MEdwards]

Check further on it, and I would like to see your source for this story.You know, Bill, seems a bit rude to me to demand a poster "check further on it" when you could check on it yourself. Google's really good at that.

This is the FAA's "advisory notice" on the matter. It's an FDC NOTAM issued some time after 9/11/2001 and reissued at least once since. I've seen it lots of times in weather briefings. If you've never seen it, you're not alone.

FDC NOTAM 4/0811 ...SPECIAL NOTICE... THIS IS A RESTATEMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ADVISORY NOTICE. IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PILOTS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE ABOVE, OR IN PROXIMITY TO SUCH SITES AS POWER PLANTS (NUCLEAR, HYDRO-ELECTRIC, OR COAL), DAMS, REFINERIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, MILITARY FACILITIES AND OTHER SIMILAR FACILITIES. PILOTS SHOULD NOT CIRCLE AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY OVER THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. WIE UNTIL UFN

This is one of the sources on the story:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html?WT.mc_id=130111epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

[martymayes]

I don't think there has to be anything marked on a chart. For instance it is illegal to fly over large outdoor gatherings like NCAA football games just like U of Colo. 5 miles sought of Boulder at game time.

I really think it is the same with nuclear plants. Check further on it, and I would like to see your source for this story.

Thanks.

Here is the NOTAM:

FDC 1/0530 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE.... IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, AND TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE ABOVE, OR IN PROXIMITY TO, SITES SUCH AS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, POWER PLANTS, DAMS, REFINERIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, AND OTHER SIMILAR FACILITIES. PILOT SHOULD NOT CIRCLE AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY OF SUCH FACILITIES.


Since the NOTAM doesn't define "loitering," SSA got clarification from the FAA that says: "In FAA's view, according to our Washington contacts, gliders do not "loiter." That is, circling is a mode of flight for us and is acceptable at or near these facilities. The key is to spend only as much time as needed to gain lift and move on beyond the facility." This has been posted on the SSA website since 2002.

So ultimately, Mr. Fleming wasn't doing anything wrong.


Most sporting events or events that attract a lot of public interest are usually protected by a TFR.

[Bill Greenwood]

Floatsflyer, my post in answer to your topic was not meant to be rude, and I clearly wrote that while I think it is prohibited to fly over a nuclear plant, I wasn't sure.
You told us the story without any reference to the source. And no, I don't think you are infalible nor do I plan to take everything you write as gosapel without question, anymore than I believed Armstrong when he claimed to be infalible.
If you or M E Edwards think that is rude, then I suggest that you don't read anything that I write and don't reply to anything I write. I don't think I have met either of you, and don't know you, but if you prefer to make an enemy before a chance to make a friend, then so be it.
Sounds like to me that you had a hard day or need to get back on your medication.

Martymayes, thanks for giving us the exact language re the plants.When all this came out a few years back I know that nuclear plants were mentioned, but wasn't sure what the exact rule was.

It is possible that if a sailplane was circling in the plant area, perhaps to climb in an updraft over the heat of the plant, then it could be claimed to "loiter"in the area.It is one thing for the SSA to give their definition of loitering and another for the FAA to do it.

In 35 years of flying I have only twice heard the FAA admit they were wrong about anything, not to even mention southern sheriffs. Had this pilot been African American or a teenager in many southern states like Texas where I grew up he would likely have been dead, not just held overnight and treated rudely.

I am sorry that he took the plea agreement rather than find the best attorney available and sue those involved. I can understand why he did it and in the end when his case went to a local jury, he might have faced a home team decision and lost, not matter what the law says. And if you do win a legal judgement against the sheriff, it will almost always be paid by the taxpayers rather than coming from the offender himself.
There are a lot of people that are resentful and jealous of anyone in private aviation.

[Flyfalcons]

It's just lazy Bill. You've got da interweb at your fingertips, you're capable of doing follow-up searches as well.

[Floatsflyer]

Floatsflyer, my post in answer to your topic was not meant to be rude, and I clearly wrote that while I think it is prohibited to fly over a nuclear plant, I wasn't sure.
If you or M E Edwards think that is rude, then I suggest that you don't read anything that I write and don't reply to anything I write.
Sounds like to me that you had a hard day or need to get back on your medication.


I'm not going to respond to this, I believe everyone sees your comments for what they are and I don't want Hal or Bryan to end this thread because the story represents a very important issue for all of us: That the FAA retains control of airspace issues, not idiot, ignorant, Billy Bob sherriffs. It's stated in either one of the AOPA written articles or in one of the videos that this sherriff requested that the glider be shot down!!! We should be afraid, very afraid.

[Matt Gonitzke]

It is one thing for the SSA to give their definition of loitering and another for the FAA to do it.

It was the FAA that gave their definition, not, the SSA...here's Marty's post again for your convenience:


Since the NOTAM doesn't define "loitering," SSA got clarification from the FAA that says: "In FAA's view, according to our Washington contacts, gliders do not "loiter." That is, circling is a mode of flight for us and is acceptable at or near these facilities. The key is to spend only as much time as needed to gain lift and move on beyond the facility."

[David Pavlich]

While I agree 100% that the sheriff acted poorly, we need to look back to when all this zealotry started: Sept. 11, 2001. I remember listening to Neil Boortz (he flies a Mooney) one morning some time ago. Someone left a plane paper bag sitting on a street corner in Atlanta. I forget what they ended up finding, I think it was something like a straw or hay, but it was harmless. HOWEVER, what led up to the authorities realizing it was harmless bordered on hysteria. Needless to say, the collective WE are now programmed to suspect anything that may look out of order. Frankly, I'm surprised some jihadist hasn't strapped on 20lbs of C4 loaded with ball bearings and blew up a subway or mall. It's a lot easier to stop a large, elaborate plan than it is to stop one nutburger that remains silent until he presses the button.

At any rate, the fact that the pilot is 70 years old and has had time to think through the possible outcome and expense led him to decline litigation.

David

[Bill Greenwood]

Matt, where do you get the part about the FAA statement on gliders? From SSA? I am not an SSA member any longer, but I have never received any such notice from the FAA itself and I am a glider pilot. MEdwards posted that statement which he says is from "a 2002 SSA website."

I believe that is not a statement or release by the FAA itself. I think what you and Marty have is a statement by SSA, (Soaring Society of America) about what they say and hope is the FAA position. There can certainly be a difference, especially if a case becomes a court matter. And here we have a matter that if push comes to shove can be claimed to be national security, and pilots may get the short end of the stick. Especially a small group like sailplane pilots probably have very little political and almost no economic clout. It may seem to us to be ridiculous to regard a light sailplane as a threat, but then TSA has never let ridiculous stop them from anything.

Many people, for instance, believe that the FAA controls hours of operations and noise matters at airports. Some years back a member of the Eagles band, ( might be Glen Frey) had a house overlooking the Aspen airport, and he didn't like airplanes or their noise. So he got the county attorney to try to close the airport to night flights. He secretly gave the county $100,000 to fight the case for him so he could remain incognito. The noise issue did not sell too well since small private planes were quieter than the airlines, so they converted it to a fight on safety which the public will usually buy, especially against a smaller group like pilots. This was long enough ago so that corporate and private jets were rare and even the airlines were ConvAir 580 tubroprops (great planes by the way). The Denver paper had a headline to the extent that "Private pilots want the right to crash into the mountains at night".
Many pilots claimed that the FAA, not the county had the final say. Sounds good but was politically naive. The county went over the head of FAA to the congressional budget committee that funds them and the result was a compromise that resulted in an 11pm to 7am curfew for all flights ( less medical) that is the rule today.

What matters in the end is money. If the pilot can win a lawsuit, more power to him. But if he is going to be satisfied to drop it with not even a written apology , then I'll bet the local sheriff is laughing at him still, not to mention the corporation that controls the power plant.
You may know of the recent case where Mexico arrested and held a 20 year old American on a bogus gun charge. The only thing the finally got him released from a filthy prison was when the U S quit begging and threatened to stop U S tourism to Mexico. That is big $$$$$ and got quick results, and he is free.

I don't know if pilots and especially glider pilots are any factor in tourism to S. C. or that county, but I'd like to see a boycott at least tried. Why give tourist money to people like that?

[1600vw]

I don't know if pilots and especially glider pilots are any factor in tourism to S. C. or that county, but I'd like to see a boycott at least tried. Why give tourist money to people like that?



Ditto.......

[Floatsflyer]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the age of social media. If you wish to voice displeasure with the Mayberry Marvel with respect to his outrageous actions and behaviour or economic sanctions, tourism boycott, etc; etc, then here's some helpful info to communicate with him or the county directly:

Sheriff J. Wayne Byrd is on Facebook and Linkedin

His email is jwbyrd@darcosc.com

If you wish to use snail mail:

J. Wayne Byrd, Darlington County Sheriffs Office,
1621 Harry Byrd Highway
P.O. Box 783
Darlington County, South Carolina
29540-0783
Phone # 843-398-4501

Dale Surrett,
County Administrator,
dsurrett@darcosc.com
843-398-4100

Frank Willis, Executive Director,
Darlington County Economic Development Partnership
Florence, SC, 29501
fwillis@dcedp.biz
843-413-3210

Ms. Mozella "Pennie" Nicholson
Vice Chairman
Darlington County Council
1905 Elmwood St.
Hartsville, SC
843-383-9238(Home)
843-398-4100

Also seems our good ole boy yahoo is in a heep of trouble down there in SC with alleged illicit affairs, firings of deputies and lawsuits launched by agrieved husbands. This Billy Bob's a heep a work...allegedly. Here's just one article from an investigation by the local TV station. There are others.

http://www.wistv.com/story/19122120/lawsuit-sheriff-fired-deputies-to-cover-up-illicit-affair

[WLIU]

For what its worth, 18 USC 242, Deprivation of rights under color of law, likely applies to the arrest and detention of this pilot. I understand the individual's desire to put the incident behind him, but I will hazard a guess that there are many attorney's who would take the case on contingency. The damages awarded or settled for may be small or may be larger. Most certainly the court would order that the incident not be repeated, and if it was, the Sheriff would be in contempt. Likely career ending for someone in law enforcement.

If you want to encourage change in that jurisdiction, rather than economically penalize folks who are unconnected to the incident, send your e-mails and letters to the county supervisors who own the budget for the Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff may be elected, but he does not have an independent budget.

I will observe that the staff at the power plant can complain all that they want. That is their privilege. Law enforcement is obligated to know the laws and in this case they could have contacted the watch desk at the nearest FSDO to understand the current rules and their jurisdiction. If they did not, then that makes them even more liable for their behavior.

Everyone reading this now knows that you do not have to land if the local Sheriff calls on the radio. You don't even have to call the tower if the ground controller tells you to. Aviation lawyers will tell you absolutely not to. Call them when you have your own lawyer sitting next to you. Make due process work for you.

As for some of the heat in previous posts, I observe that some of the older contributors to this forum have not fully embraced the power of the internet and the variety of search engines available. And typed communication tends to be less nuanced and friendly than face to face. I will suggest that we ignore some of the rough edge that comes from participants who did not grow up typing their thoughts. Its surprising how many folks don't proof read what they type and don't understand that the text and grammar that they choose to express themselves can come across in ways that they did not think about.

That said, I agree that Google and its peers are your friend. I try to always look up something using a search engine before I blast out a question that shows the entire world how ignorant I am. Doesn't mean that I am not ignorant, but it helps hide it better...

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Floatsflyer]

Wes, I like your comments. I'm a student of human rights and civil liberties and have followed the careers and teachings of people like Alan Borovoy(one of the world's great minds and experts on the subject) but now that I know what I could not have reasonably known heretofor--that there are lunatic sheriffs on the ground looking to shoot me down- I'm not so sure that I would follow your advice below and ignore him. Better to suck up the rights violations and deal with the Billy Bob bozo in court and the court of public opinion, alive.


For what its worth, 18 USC 242, Deprivation of rights under color of law, likely applies to the arrest and detention of this pilot.

Everyone reading this now knows that you do not have to land if the local Sheriff calls on the radio. You don't even have to call the tower if the ground controller tells you to. Aviation lawyers will tell you absolutely not to. Call them when you have your own lawyer sitting next to you. Make due process work for you.

[Matt Gonitzke]

Bill, if you spend 30 seconds searching the SSA website for the word 'loiter' you will find the original article. I hate to point out what I quoted again, but it says "SSA got clarification from the FAA that says: "In FAA's view, according to our Washington contacts, gliders do not "loiter"" meaning that is the FAA's position, stated very clearly IMO.

[Wilfred]

One of the real civil right violations here (if the reports are accurate) is that the officials required the arrested pilot to promise not to sue in order for them to release him.

That is an action in itself that would be actionable in a court of law.

[Bill Greenwood]

Matt, you and I seem to have the same facts, that is that the information on "loiter" came from the SSA website,or the article by SSA, and not directly from the FAA. Our interpretation is different, you seem to believe that this is equivalent to the FAA saying the same thing, and I don't agree.

This case seems to be done and not going to court after the sheriff and local court buffaloed the glider pilot.
But if it did go to court, the prosecutor might have an easy time before a local jury to the effect:
"Folks, this man recklessly flew a airplane over our power plant and homes, without a flight plan on file anywhere, and without being in contact with an air traffic control facility.
And not only that, but he flew very low and without even an engine, with nothing tangible to hold him aloft and he might at any time crash into the power plant or homes below."

The jury is not going to be pilots or EAA members, it is going to be the housewives and retired people of the local area. This is Nascar and tobacco country in a red state, and that is likely the type of people who would be jurors.

And who is going to speak for the glider pilot? Is the FAA going to come down and say that the pilot did nothing wrong? Not likely. And how much weight do you think the SAA witness is going to carry with a jury if indeed the SSA even was willing to get involved, which I have doubts about ?
Perhaps you know of a number of cases where the FAA testified on behalf of a pilot against law enforcement, and if so I'd like to hear of them. I know of a case where the FAA went out of their way for 5 years or so to try to convict an American war hero and renown expert airshow pilot, Bob Hoover and the lack of due process and any semblance of fairness would make an Iranian court blush.

I personally know of a case where the pilot was accused by lawyers for the other side of making a bad and dangerous landing, ie too long and too fast. The pilot would likely have been in trouble if not for one thing, unbeknowst to those lawyers there were photos from a local photographer showing the landing exactly on the aim spot in the middle of the vasi lights.

I don't think it is as cut and dried, (no problem) as you make it out or would like it to be.

[Bob Meder]

What's funny in the Omaha area is when we're getting flight following from the TRACON, either entering or leaving the Class C airspace up near OPPD's Fort Calhoun power plant. ATC asks us to go left or right well clear of the plant as we motor by. One time, for the tape recorder, I brought up the whole "but we're not loitering" thing and the controller said "Yeah, but we don't want to deal with the phone calls from those guys..."

Meantime, I shoot ILS' down to within a couple hundred feet of the airbase that is STRATCOMM's HQ and home of the E4 command post aircraft...

[pacerpilot]

A few months back sheriffs deputies (yes plural) descended upon Livingston Muni-00R in an effort to find the aircraft that was flying low over the Lake Livingston dam. They had convinced themselves this was a huge violation of some kind of national security rule-somewhere, somehow. After we calmed them down-cops get very excited if they think they can arrest sombody-we began to explain that no laws were broken. We chuckled a bit at there lack of knowledge and explained that flight over the dam is completely acceptable. We tried to get them to call the FAA or FBI but they wouldn't-at this point I'm pretty sure they were worried about embarrasment. Oh well, the world we live in.

[WLIU]

The last post is a reasonable outcome.

I believe that Bill misses the point of the Federal law. A good lawyer will say that the Sheriff was doing OK up until he fabricated the charge and made the arrest. At that point the law and Supreme Court precedent said that the Sheriff crossed the line and having admitted that he fabricated a reason to imprison the pilot, the only question for the jury to decide is the amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded. This action will take place in Federal court, not state court. Please Google the topic if you think that this logic is not correct. Most folks are far too willing to give in to the abuse of their rights.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS


Update - I just looked at the AOPA web page and they report that the Sheriff is getting apologetic about the incident. I suspect that he is realizing how much liability he walked into.

[flyrite]

Wow , I read of happenings like this & I am ALMOST motivated to get on my "Soap Box" & expound upon the "root causes" for why this "Goofy Sheriff" even for a minute though he had the authority to do what he did .....And then I remember .....People don't want to hear what the "Root" of all these kinds of abuses stem from .

And sure as you start pointing out the obvious , Someones "Ox will be gored" & we will get into the politics of it all & the "Exceptions will gripe about the majority rules" & the next thing you know we will be talking about what would REALLY eliminate these kinds of abuses & well ...Crap...We won't be talking Aviation anymore....or will we ?



OH WAIT .....DID I JUST TYPE ALL THAT OUT LOUD..........Oppps.......sorry Guys, my "Soap Box" sometimes has a mind of it's own .:rollseyes:

[Floatsflyer]

I believe that Bill misses the point of the Federal law. A good lawyer will say that the Sheriff was doing OK up until he fabricated the charge and made the arrest. At that point the law and Supreme Court precedent said that the Sheriff crossed the line and having admitted that he fabricated a reason to imprison the pilot, the only question for the jury to decide is the amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded. This action will take place in Federal court, not state court. Please Google the topic if you think that this logic is not correct. Most folks are far too willing to give in to the abuse of their rights.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS


Update - I just looked at the AOPA web page and they report that the Sheriff is getting apologetic about the incident. I suspect that he is realizing how much liability he walked into.


Wes, you sound like you could be a Lawyer(btw, so good to hear factual info on this forum, rather than some people speaking through their a**es) so, if you are, I'd like to ask if there are legal grounds for Mr. Fleming to initiate an action against the Sheriff and/or County despite the fact that he apparently waived his right to do so? Thanks.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Just wondering why everyone is jumping on the local sheriff while giving the power plant security guys, who initiated the whole incident, and SHOULD have known the rules governing flights over their facility, a pass.

[Floatsflyer]

Just wondering why everyone is jumping on the local sheriff while giving the power plant security guys, who initiated the whole incident, and SHOULD have known the rules governing flights over their facility, a pass.


Because all law enforcement has a legal and moral duty to know the laws and enforce them properly...NOT abuse their power and authority in the absense of not knowing, I.E. not making it up as they go along!

[nrpetersen]

Would be be more appropriate for the pilot (and the rest of us) to simply state that "we are operate strictly under FAA rules up here and to suggest that the law enforcement people ask the FAA what we should do?"

[Bill Greenwood]

Wes, I am not a lawyer,but my Son Charles is, and he is an assistant district attorney, and I am very proud of him.
I do follow some legal and court cases as sort of a hobby and do know of some cases, both civil and criminal. I have been to small claims court 4 times and did pretty well , won 3 and tied 1. One of these cases I won was for $2200 when the repair shop put the wrong part on my plane and it failed shortly.
What I have said is just my opinion, but it is to some extent based on known cases. You can research the fatal accident of the son and husband of gov.Carahan of Mo. and the finding BY A JURY, that went against the facts.
Next the finding, BY A JURY, of partial responsibility against Howard Pardue, who as the flight leader was only sitting still on the runway when a following pilot began his takeoff roll, without a clear path, and ran into Howard from the rear. ALL of the responsibility was and should have been on the following pilot, but the jury had some sympathy for the injured pilot and found, at least partially against the facts. I have flown formation takeoffs,ESPECIALLY IN TAILWHEEL PLANES, as you may well have also and the following pilot, should never start his takeoff until the lead pilot is off the ground, no ifs ands and buts.

You say this case would be in federal court, and I don't know about this but I am talking not about the country criminal case against the pilot which he probably could win, and which has been dropped. I an talking about a claim for civil damages by the glider pilot against the sheriff and the county.

Legal cases are often won on two ways, first the judge excluding some of the testimony and evidence from even being heard and considered. The other way is jury selection. Take a look at the O J case. Once the jury was comprised of people hostile to the L A police and favorable to O J, the outcome was preordained despite all the blood evidence or abundance of facts for his guilt. Nothing was going to get 12 of those jurors to vote against OJ. In the civil case that O J lost and the next criminal case the juror makeup was different, and so was the result.

I don't think we know for sure about this sheriff and if he is popular with the local people or not, or even if the glider pilot might have support in the local area.

But don't overlook how hard it is to get a jury to vote against local law enforcement. Growing up in Texas, I know of at least 3 cases where Houston police murdered people (twice shot unarmed young men,and once threw handcuffed prisoners in the river to drown) and all were acquitted by juries. And it took decades before any southern jury would convict cops or sheriffs of KKK type crimes.

I wish the glider pilot would hire an attorney, a very good one, and file a civil suit, but many people will just skip the expense and effort.

[martymayes]

What I have said is just my opinion, but it is to some extent based on known cases. You can research the fatal accident of the son and husband of Sen. McCaskill of Mo. and the finding BY A JURY, that went against the facts.

I have to assume you are referring to Sen. Jean Carnahan?

The only aviation related news stories I can recall about Claire McCaskill involve questionable use of taxpayer money for ~90 flights in a PC-12 she owned with her husband and others via LLC and that the LLC failed to pay MO property tax on the same aircraft for several yrs, something she was "unaware of." Of course in both cases, she wrote checks to cover the bills owed and it was all forgotten.

[Bill Greenwood]

Marty, the accident that I referred to was when the husband and son of the Mo (Sen or Gov?) crashed in IMC weather. Despite the FAA finding that both vacumn pumps were intact and had not failed the jury found that that was the cause of the crash.Sad in this case.
Do I have the name wrong? Was it Carnahan and not McCaskill ? My memory it that the pilot was the son, the Dad, co pilot was Gov, and both were instrument rated and the plane may have been a twin. I don't know about anything on Pilatus flights and don't think that has anything to do with the crash I am referring to.
I think the widow then was appointed to the office or later ran and was elected.

P S , I just looked up the accident history and you are right, Carnahan, not McCaskill.This accident is one of the reasons that I almost never fly IMC, if you make a mistake it can and often is fatal. Heck, all those Missouri folks look alike to me, Jesse James, Mark Twain, etc.

What do you mean about "if his attitude has changed about night x-c," etc. Who do you mean and what does that have to do with this whole topic? The glider pilot was not doing a night flight, was he?

[WLIU]

If this case were filed, it would be in federal court against the Sheriff. Civil rights cases are great for the lawyers because the city or the county pays the winning lawyer's fees when they win.

I would have to check this exact application, but my understanding is that you can not be forced to waive a constitutional right. They can make you sign a form, but it carries no weight going forward. Sort of like you can not sign a liability release form and waive your right to sue for negligence. If the other party is negligent, instead of merely incompetent, you can always sue.

I regret that I spend way too much time, when I would rather be flying, with lawyers, FAA stuff, FDA stuff, and other administrivia. And it helps to have a former state Attorney General in the family to keep me honest.

This particular Sheriff likely never expected to get as much attention as he is seeing. AOPA has a lot of lawyers on tap and I suspect that they are "educating" him so that this never happens again.

As for the nuke plant security folks, they are commercial security people. They have all of the authority of you and I to complain about passer-bys and neighbors. They are not aviation experts, are likely completely untrained about aviation operations, and if there is a lawsuit and they are placed on the witness stand, a good attorney will take about a minute and a half to shred their judgement about how low the sailplane was. That's what good attorneys do. But in the end, this case would have nothing to do about aviation and everything to do about a sworn law enforcement officer infringing on the civil rights of the pilot under the color of law. Its not about what the FAA said or the SSA published, its about a Sheriff who went ahead and arrested and individual even when he had no articulable evidence that a real crime had been committed.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Bill Berson]

The information guy at Grand Coulee Dam told me I could fly over the dam all I want. That thing is about 100 feet thick of concrete, they don't care.

Nuclear plants are virtually impenetrable by small airplane. And even if the building was breached, any significant disaster is extremely improbable.

[danielfindling]

I would have to check this exact application, but my understanding is that you can not be forced to waive a constitutional right. They can make you sign a form, but it carries no weight going forward. Sort of like you can not sign a liability release form and waive your right to sue for negligence.

Wes,

Being "forced" to waive a right is called duress. However, you can voluntarily waive most constitutional rights and certainly can waive your right to sue for negligence.

While a waiver may not prevent someone from filing suit, properly drafted they are enforced.

On a other note, the sheriff's conduct is governed by intergovernmental immunity. There are exceptions to this immunity, for example violating civil rights or gross negligence. However, police are generally immune from these types of errors.

Daniel Findling

[1600vw]

Something like this makes me like not using a radio even more. Non of this would have happened if he had no radio. Would he not have just sailed on and no one would have known whom he was or from where he came?

What I learned from this is:

This will happen again to someone somewhere.

Keep your mouth shut on the radio if using one and you hear something like this. Leave the area and go on about your day.

Local police can not tell you to land or force you out of the sky.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Because all law enforcement has a legal and moral duty to know the laws and enforce them properly...NOT abuse their power and authority in the absense of not knowing, I.E. not making it up as they go along!

And the power plant security guys are absolved of that moral and legal duty? They are not expected to know that the airspace over their facility is NOT protected airspace? Why not?

[WLIU]

Don't think that I would go so far as to not use the radio. Radios are helpful tools.

What I would do is be polite. Diplomatically suggest that any local law enforcement will find it in their best interests to speak with the FAA about aviation rules before taking any action. Communicate that it is not in your or their interest that the incident become larger than a simple misunderstanding. Try to make sure that your encounter is on camera. Most newer police cars these days have a video camera running whenever the flashing lights are on. And everyone has cell phone cameras. The federal courts have ruled that it is legal everywhere to film and audio record police on the job. And never agree to not sue for misconduct. The longer that you are detained, the better your case for damages. Patience and calm are your friend. Then go get the best attorney you can find.

Being older when these things occur can be a real advantage. When I was young I had much less understanding of how our legal system works and not nearly enough patience to effectively employ the legal tools that we have available.

But if you want to learn patience, build and airplane or do paperwork with the FAA...

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Floatsflyer]

And the power plant security guys are absolved of that moral and legal duty? They are not expected to know that the airspace over their facility is NOT protected airspace? Why not?


It's not that they're absolved, they never had a moral or legal duty in the first place because they are not sworn or obligated to know, uphold and apply laws and/or regulations. I'm curious to know why you continue to believe or have an expectation that $10 an hour security guards should be held to such standards and accountability?

As Wes has already said on the subject they have no authority, likely have no aviation expertise and are not trained in aviation operations.

[WLIU]

That is correct. The folks at places like power plants are officially armed security guards per state and federal certification. They are NOT police. Much like mall security on steroids. I will hazard a guess that they are not trained beyond trespass law, use of force law, and workplace safety. They don't have to know anything about aviation, boating, hunting, fishing, or any other activity that takes place around where they work.

The security folks called the local Sheriff to complain. That's fine. They are allowed to do that.

Funny story - there is a state prison near the site of an annual aerobatic contest. One of the out of town competitors went out to practice her flight program and did it over the prison. None of us ever think much about what's on the ground except to try to limit the noise footprint of what we do. Well a representative of the prison staff telephoned the airport and requested that we not provide entertainment for the inmates. So we were good neighbors and passed the word around that folks should go a little farther away to practice. But the corrections staff had no authority to do more than ask.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Floatsflyer]

The pilot community outcry continues to reverberate and AOPA continues to advocate on behalf of pilots who are very concerned they could suffer from similar action. Where is EAA on this subject? I've done searches and can't find any response or even an acknowlegment of the event itself. So Sad!!!!! Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents. C'mon Jack, a great opportunity to show some leadership to the members on a crucial issue.

Byrd-brain's Facebook page has apparently been taken down after receiving overwhelming nasty comments.

Here's the latest on the event and AOPA's continuing advocacy:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130117lessons-learned-from-glider-arrest.html?CMP=News:S1T

[Hal Bryan]

Floats, you ask a fair question, but you're not going to get a meaningful response when you pepper it with snide comments about VIP tents; if those are still an issue for you, then the proper place for that is: feedback@eaa.org.

I know we're following the story, and I'll ask our advocacy folks if they have anything to add when I'm back in the office tomorrow.

[rwanttaja]

So, now that the pleasantries are out of the way, what SHOULD the EAA do about Sheriff Bubba?

Should the Experimental Aircraft Association should do anything at all? Note that I deliberately spelled out the organization's name... what does the problem described have to do with promoting or operating Experimental Aircraft? Whether the aircraft had an experimental certificate had nothing to do with the incident.

Definitely, this is an overall aviation advocacy issue. However, from other comments on the Forums, there's a lot of opposition towards EAA extending its activities beyond building and certifying homebuilt aircraft. EAA has only a certain amount of money available for Government Advocacy. How much of their budget should they spend going after Sheriff Bubba, vs. fighting the very real threats the federal organizations pose to the homebuilt aircraft movement?

Would it more worthwhile making Sheriff Bubba's face even redder, or to fight the fact that the NTSB wants to have homebuilt aircraft airworthiness certificates cancelled whenever the plane is sold?

Then again, maybe if EAA sold a chalet or two extra next summer, they could do both....:-)

One also gets to the practical issues. What *can* EAA do? There are no legal charges, so it's not like they could help the man in court. The pilot waived his right to sue (though some discussion say it couldn't really stick). So other than publicly wring its hands, what can EAA do in this case? Is this whole controversy over EAA not saying, "Oh, that's awful" fast enough?

Ron Wanttaja

[WLIU]

So on the topic of EAA's response to the sailplane incident, I will agree that I do not see that EAA needs to get all excited. EAA does a bunch of things well in a world where if you try to do everything, you just fail at everything and get nothing done. My 35 years of observation leaves me with the impression that AOPA is where the lawyers are. They can cover this issue adequately. AOPA is welcome to the credit. I encourage EAA to focus on facilitation the invention of unleaded avgas. If I don't get that, I will likely not be able to fly around where I make my local nuke plant staff nervous.

Perhaps it is my age, but these days I try to be really good at a few things rather than so-so at many. I don't know whether that is mature wisdom or merely fatigue. Your mileage may vary.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[rosiejerryrosie]

It's not that they're absolved, they never had a moral or legal duty in the first place because they are not sworn or obligated to know, uphold and apply laws and/or regulations. I'm curious to know why you continue to believe or have an expectation that $10 an hour security guards should be held to such standards and accountability?

As Wes has already said on the subject they have no authority, likely have no aviation expertise and are not trained in aviation operations.

You are probably legally correct, but, I would like to suggest that folks paid to discharge the responsibility of providing security at any installation be at least familiar with the laws and regulations regarding that facility. If they were aware that there was, in fact, NO no fly zone over their facility the whole incident would have been avoided. Just sayin'

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't think any reasonable person should be worried about airplanes flying low over a dam, unless it is a group of Lancasters with very big bombs.

As for any possible liability of the power plant in this case, it might be that any civil suit would/could also name the private corporation, if any, that runs the plant. It would not target an individual guard, but the company if they gave false information to the sheriff, such at the the glider was 100 feet over the plant when it was actually 1000 ' or so. It was the report from the plant that got the sheriff involved, and most suits will target any party, even if it doesn't all stick.

The downside of any civil suit is that a judgement for damages ( false imprisonment overnight) etc. is that is won't come out of the sheriff's pocket who likely doesn't have much more than a big screen tv and some guns, but be paid by the taxpayers. Even if the sheriff was found guilty of something major and fired, usually they just move on somewhere else and get the same type of job.

Our local law people thankfully are a lot better than most. Several of the deputies are friends and one is a pilot who ties his twin Cessna down near my plane.

[Tom Charpentier]

The pilot community outcry continues to reverberate and AOPA continues to advocate on behalf of pilots who are very concerned they could suffer from similar action. Where is EAA on this subject? I've done searches and can't find any response or even an acknowlegment of the event itself. So Sad!!!!! Must be too busy thinking about pricing for those 2013 AV VIP tents. C'mon Jack, a great opportunity to show some leadership to the members on a crucial issue.

Byrd-brain's Facebook page has apparently been taken down after receiving overwhelming nasty comments.

Here's the latest on the event and AOPA's continuing advocacy:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130117lessons-learned-from-glider-arrest.html?CMP=News:S1T

When it comes to advocacy between our two organizations, there are some issues that we take point on and AOPA lends us support, and there are some issues that AOPA takes lead on and we support them (and there are some issue that we take joint ownership of, such as the medical petition). This was a case of the second scenario. Aviation is a very broad field and in this case covering the same base simply wasn't an effective use of resources. AOPA did an excellent job seeing the situation through to its conclusion. You can bet that sheriff will never make the same mistake again, and it hopefully prompted greater awareness of the rights of aviators in the law enforcement community.

Are we concerned about this case? Absolutely. Unfortunately we have seen too many of these misunderstandings over the years, particularly since 9/11. We have fought hard and will continue to fight hard on GA security issues, particularly at the national level. We are always happy to lend support to state and local issues as well when our members come to us. In fact I'm working on two issues this very evening that are so important I'm staying late on a Friday night (happy to do it too - I'm single and I love my work:)). If you ever have a problem in your area that you need help with call my direct line at 920-426-6124 or send an email to tcharpentier@eaa.org.

And I'll take a moment to reiterate my standard line on local airport/community issues - remember that EAA is more than just the national office when it comes to advocacy. You, as our fellow members and chapters, are central to keeping your communities GA friendly. Find ways to get municipal officials and members of the general public to the airport, through Young Eagles rallies, airport open houses, etc.... Promote yourselves through local media. The more aware the non-flying public is about who you are and what you're doing at the airport, the less likely things like this are to happen in your community. They're also friends you need to have the next time a developer comes knocking wanting to put up a strip mall on your airport. "Bob, the really nice pilot who showed us around at the airport/gave my kid a ride" is a lot harder to sell out than "those guys over there at the airport with the scary airplanes." Misconceptions like "there must be a no-fly zone over a nuke plant, right?" are formed of ignorance. Do what you can to fight ignorance.

Anyway, I hope that addresses your concern, and let us know if you have any questions.

Tom

[Floatsflyer]

Hey Tom,

Thanks for the quick reply and for taking the time to provide an informative explanation, much appreciated. And please thank Hal for getting this to you.

The only problem going forward then seems that, without a program, we don't know which organization takes point on which advocacy issue. I guess I'll have to email you and ask as such critical issues arise.


I do still believe that EAA should have sent out a press release at the very least so the members were aware of its concern. Then I wouldn't make such poor judgement calls. Ok...I'll email you.

Don't work too hard tonight...better to be in....it's soooo cold out there.

Once again, thanks.... AND KEEP US FLYING!!!

[Floatsflyer]

This is not one bit funny but the yahoo Mayberry Marvel has relocated south

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilot_Hit_Gunfire_208075-1.html

[Tom Charpentier]

Thanks Floats. We understand how this incident struck a chord with many people, as it certainly did with myself. We have enough issues of misunderstanding with the non-flying public when they're not carrying handcuffs! In the future we'll be more proactive with our communications so it's clear that issues aren't falling through the cracks. Feel free to call or email me any time.

Yeah, we saw that story about the gunfire too. Pretty scary that in such a big sky a stray bullet would not only hit a plane but come within a half inch or two of killing the pilot. Steve Wittman's "Little Bonzo," his Goodyear Racer, actually took groundfire flying somewhere down south I believe. If you look closely at it in our museum there's actually a little Confederate Battle Flag sticker covering the bullet hole just inboard of the wing root.

[Curiousflyer]

Here is the NOTAM:


Since the NOTAM doesn't define "loitering," SSA got clarification from the FAA that says: "In FAA's view, according to our Washington contacts, gliders do not "loiter." That is, circling is a mode of flight for us and is acceptable at or near these facilities. The key is to spend only as much time as needed to gain lift and move on beyond the facility." This has been posted on the SSA website since 2002.



MartyMayes:

I can't locate the clarification quoted by Sarah Brown, author of the AOPA article titled "Secret No Fly Zone" on the SSA website. It could be that it's in a members only section. Can anyone locate the entire discussion on the SSA website that covers the 'glider exemption' discussed by Ms. Brown? and post the URL or the text online (with the source URL)?

Thanks!:thumbsup:

While it looks like glider pilot Robin Flemming may have been "ok" with regard to NOTAM 4/0811 (assuming the quoted FAA interpretation allegedly posted on the SSA website exists, and is not misquoted either on the SSA website or by Ms. Brown), that he may still have a problem with FAR 91.119. We all know that flight above "congested" areas must be at least 1,000 feet AGL. Flemmings on board flight recorder reported his MSL altitude as 1,518 while he was above the power plant with a charted maximum elevation of 577' MSL (an AGL height of just 941'). Flemming has admitted (a) that he knew he was over the power plant; and (b) that his "lowest altitude" while over the power plant was less than the FAR 91.119 minimum.

I have located a document online on the Balloon Federation of America's website that discusses FAA denial of their request for an exemption from FAR 91.119. As far as I know there is likewise no exemption for gliders.

Regardless of the lack of merit that the Darlington County Sheriff's allegation might have of flying too low over the power plant, Fleming is still at risk of an FAA violation for the act because of the admissions he presented to defend against the H.B. Robinson security officers claims of flight at "100' above the [reactor] dome" that precipitated the Sheriff's involvement in the first place.

[WLIU]

Power plants do not fall under the FAA's legal definition of congested area. Interestingly, you will not find "congested area" defined in the FAR's. You have to dig through the FAA legal cases.

I will also point out that the flight recorder offers "hearsay" level evidence. It is unlikely that its calibration meets legal standards, so plus or minus 100 foot accuracy can easily put the pilot above 1000' agl. To get to FAA accepted standards for accuracy the sailplane would have to operate a Transponder with Mode C with tracking by the nearest ATC facility.

But in this case, the FAA is not interested. The local sheriff was the individual who went off the reservation.

Lets please not blame the victim. A few feet of altitude is no justification for the denial of civil rights.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Check 6]

Power plants do not fall under the FAA's legal definition of congested area. Interestingly, you will not find "congested area" defined in the FAR's. You have to dig through the FAA legal cases.

I will also point out that the flight recorder offers "hearsay" level evidence. It is unlikely that its calibration meets legal standards, so plus or minus 100 foot accuracy can easily put the pilot above 1000' agl. To get to FAA accepted standards for accuracy the sailplane would have to operate a Transponder with Mode C with tracking by the nearest ATC facility.

But in this case, the FAA is not interested. The local sheriff was the individual who went off the reservation.

Lets please not blame the victim. A few feet of altitude is no justification for the denial of civil rights.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

Very true, and even with Mode C the readout rounds off to the nearest 100 feet, so 951' = 1,000' and 949' = 900'.

[Curiousflyer]

Very true, and even with Mode C the readout rounds off to the nearest 100 feet, so 951' = 1,000' and 949' = 900'.


Check 6 and WLIU:

We've got the potential on the west coast for similar dust ups. The National Marine Fisheries Marine Sanctuaries have authority to levy $100,000 fines against pilots who fly within their airspace (yep, they own it - check out the latest west coast sectionals). Flemming's on board flight recorder was supposed to be capable of verifying record flights. That implies it was pretty accurate, don't you think? However, it is what it is, and the recorder is probably better than the Mark I eyeball altitude estimates by plant security officers that placed him only "100 feet above" the reactor dome.

Regardless, AOPA didn't quote the entire Soaring Society of America's (SSA) advice about low level flight over power plants and other facilities addressed in NOTAM 4/0811 offered by SSA in its post dated 7 March 2002.

The SSA post had two parts:

First was "Common Sense - The issue about loitering is the volume of time spent in a given area. In FAA's view, according to our Washington contacts, gliders do not "loiter." That is, circling is a mode of flight for us and is acceptable at or near these facilities. The key is to spend only as much time as needed to gain lift and move on beyond the facility."

In this case Flemming made one circle over the power plant, during which he dropped below 1,000 feet AGL. FWIW, I am told by the nuclear power plant operators in the Hanford Nuclear Reservation of Washington that any time an aircraft approaches within 1,000 feet a mandatory report to the NRC is triggered. I don't know whether a nuclear power plant would be considered "congested", but I would not be surprised if it is given the large number of persons who work there. That could trigger FAR 91.119 and a coming, but not yet arrived, enforcement action. Regardless, power plant security personnel believed he overflew the reactor at 100'. This is the information communicated to the Sheriff. Based on this information a rapid and forceful response to an unknown reported threat was warranted.

Second was "Communication - The best possible action is for gliding operations and pilots to call the on-site security at local power plants and laboratories. Open a dialogue and tell them who you are and when you may be in their area. Quoting from our FAA contact, "Nothing helps more than a club hat or t-shirt and a personal visit to create a relationship."

As far as I can tell from anything published to this point, Flemming did not communicate his desire to overfly the nuclear power plant to anyone prior to occupying the airspace above it. If, as you point out, his onboard flight recorder could have had a error of 100 feet MSL or more then he was foolish to place himself in that position.

I don't have all of the facts, nor do most of us - perhaps any of us - about this series of events. Information I've gleaned so far suggests this is a series of events that Flemming precipitated. AOPA has selectively reported facts and cherry picked quotes from the SSA to suggest he was entirely blameless. I'll wait to see if there is a less biased reporter assembling the facts before I jump to the conclusion that "aviation is unjustly under attack". Regardless, some aspects of this case have very large implications for aviation. How are nuclear power plant security officials trained and equipped to determine aircraft altitude and distance? What do they consider a likely 'threat'? Remember, it was a perception of threat by some power plant security official that triggered the Sheriff's response. If AOPA's report is correct that Flemming was coerced into agreeing to hold the Sheriff's department harmless, that is a problem demands redress. But, it isn't a problem necessarily tied to aviation. It's a problem within the law enforcement and legal system of SC, and it should be corrected.

[Check 6]

Interesting, but 91.119 is a regulation, not a criminal statute, e.g. not arrestable. The Sheriff has no authority to investigate FARs. Only the FAA can pursue any civil sanctions regarding the FARs.

He could have overflown the facility as close as 200 feet and it wouldn't change anything.

Prior to 9/11 was this a threat? No, and it isn't now. The evidence is clear, a 747 could not penetrate that facility, let alone a low energy low mass glider.

As a retired LEO this seems to fall under the category of "false arrest" by the locals, regardless of any 91.119 sanctions.

[WLIU]

I would like to know what the unicom frequency for a nuke facility is? Sailplanes do not fly a straight line as they are subject to the conditions of the atmosphere. So the pilot did not launch knowing that he would be overflying the facility in question.

Now the areas protected by the marine fisheries folks are generally offshore and the only folks who fly there are power pilots who can control where they go. You generally do not find sailplanes and balloons offshore. I do recall a balloon race from Santa Catalina Island to the beach, but that was a while ago and I am not sure it is done anymore.

I will suggest that no matter that the model of flight recorder carried is sometimes used as data for record attempts, using its data in court would be subject to a LOT of discussion as to its admissibility. The prosecutor would have to have expert testimony that the model was held to an appropriate standard, that the specific unit had been calibrated by a trained and authorized individual prior to that flight, etc. Since the pilot was not actually making a record flight that day, the recorded data would likely fail to meet the required standard. The legal world sometimes applies more strict scrutiny than a record flight.

Civil rights are weighed more carefully than mere aviation records.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

[Mayhemxpc]

I have been following this since it was first reported and have found it both interesting and cautionary. I think that everything WLIU and Check 6 have posted about this are on point. I would like to add some observations.

a. The police -- no matter how poorly they behaved about it -- were responding to reports from what should have been a credible witness. (I would HOPE that the security at a nuclear power plant would be credible.) Yet, there is a huge difference in visual signature between a nearby object ABOUT 100 feet and one at ABOUT 1000 feet. Without splitting legal hairs, I think it safe to say that the glider was ABOUT 1000' AGL. This would lead me to believe, in the legal definition of a reasonable person, that this means one of two things: either the security people are incompetent (a VERY bad thing at a nuclear power plant) or the overflight was deliberately misreported. This is not good either, as it speaks ill of the professionalism and certainly the credibility of those security personnel.

b. Some sort of remediation is in order. This regardless of the pilot signing a waiver under duress. BOTH the Sheriff's personnel and the nuclear security personnel must undertake corrective action. The reputation of their organizations have been damaged. The statements of the Sheriff seem to indicate that the message has gotten through. I have not heard that from the power plant. Public trust and confidence should demand public statements about what is being done to preclude future events of false reports and abuse of power.

c. The lesson many people will learn from this is NOT to listen to the local UNICOM

[Check 6]

Your post

Good points. We don't know what the reactor folks told 9-1-1, and the Barney Fife was obligated to respond and investigate. But, as they immediately learned, the glider didn't attack or otherwise molest that reactor, so no harm, no foul. Case closed.

Barney Fife did not have probable cause to arrest this gentleman, and if I remember correctly from my LEO career there needs to be a nexus between an alleged act and a statute. 14 CFR Part 91 is not a statute, nor is a NOTAM.

I too do not consider a reactor to be a congested area, nor is it a settlement, town, or city.

If I was the glider pilot, combined with a litigious predisposition (I don't), I would hire the most vicious bull dog law firm and hold Barney Fife's feet to the fire. :)

[Bill Greenwood]

As far as the truthfulness of those involved, I don't think I'd put too much,if any stock in the word of a southern sheriff, or guards at any power plant. Recall if you will the case of Ellen Brockavich and the law firm who won a multimillion dollar judgement against P G & E,though it was not a nuclear plant, I don't think.

If you do go to these locations to find truth I don't think you'll have to stand in line behind Diogenes.

If the sheriff had just made a mistake and really didn't have a hostile intent, they might have approached the pilot and questioned him, but certainly wouldn't have held him in jail overnight.

[WLIU]

On a more humorous note, do they still broadcast re-runs of Mayberry? Do the younger readers here know how many bullets Sheriff Andy let Deputy Barney carry?

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[1600vw]

On a more humorous note, do they still broadcast re-runs of Mayberry? Do the younger readers here know how many bullets Sheriff Andy let Deputy Barney carry?

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

Wes yes they still show this program...Andy sometimes took that bullet from Barney he did not always let him carry it. Where did he carry it?

[WLIU]

Barney was allowed to carry one bullet in his shirt pocket. I only recall a very few episodes where Barney was allowed to load it into his revolver.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

[martymayes]

I can't locate the clarification quoted by Sarah Brown, author of the AOPA article titled "Secret No Fly Zone" on the SSA website.

I see you found the SSA clarification.



While it looks like glider pilot Robin Flemming may have been "ok" with regard to NOTAM 4/0811 (assuming the quoted FAA interpretation allegedly posted on the SSA website exists, and is not misquoted either on the SSA website or by Ms. Brown), that he may still have a problem with FAR 91.119. We all know that flight above "congested" areas must be at least 1,000 feet AGL. Flemmings on board flight recorder reported his MSL altitude as 1,518 while he was above the power plant with a charted maximum elevation of 577' MSL (an AGL height of just 941'). Flemming has admitted (a) that he knew he was over the power plant; and (b) that his "lowest altitude" while over the power plant was less than the FAR 91.119 minimum.

It's been my experience that the FAA won't pursue a 91.119 violation unless a) they witness the event; and b) the aircraft truly presents a hazard to persons or property on the ground. I don't think that's the case here.