Legal

Historically, if a pilot is accused of violating the Federal Aviation regulations, he receives a trial or hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The judge considers the evidence and then renders a decision based upon the evidence. There is, however, a disturbing new trend at the National Transportation Safety Board. This trend is to have pilots lose their cases without ever having a hearing. This article will discuss that phenomenon.

The TSA has visited two oppressive initiatives directed toward the United States general aviation community that will curtail aircraft operations in the United States, curtail the manufacture of general aviation aircraft in the United States, and put hard-working American citizens out of work. These questionable initiatives of the TSA come at a time when America is struggling to survive amidst the ravages of a deep economic recession.

A jet pilot who made a number of low level, high-speed passes over the Santa Monica Pier had his license revoked. The flight in question took place on November 6, 2008, when the pilot, as part of a two-ship formation flight, departed Van Nuys Airport (VNY)

On January 8, 2009, Alan Armstrong appeared before a Transportation Security Administration panel in Atlanta, GA and told the panel members that the entire premise of the proposed rule dealing with the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) is that large aircraft are more dangerous than small aircraft. Furthermore, the TSA arbitrarily selected a triggering weight of 12,500 lbs. which just happens to be the definition of a large aircraft in 14 C.F.R. §1.1. However, a Piper Cub could be equipped with a nuclear device which is far more devastating than the crash of a Boeing 747. For that reason, weight, the sole criterion in the TSA proposed rule, is invalid. Accordingly, the TSA proposed rule is based upon mere conjecture and hypothesis and has no rational, scientific or logical basis. For the foregoing reasons, a court of appropriate jurisdiction could find that the TSA proposed rule is unconstitutional as a violation of substantive due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.