135 operations

[lawfly]

Just skimmed the opinion in US vs. Stewart. The court at one point refers to "legal parts", when referring to some of the component parts. That would seem to imply that there could also be such things as "illegal parts". It is always the person who is "arrested" (FN FAL: The weapon is not arrested; the person is arrested.) Does that make the person illegal? What does "illegal alien" mean and is that term used in any court opinions? (Yes, it is.) And what does FN FAL mean when he states that the 9th Circuit "overturned" Setwart's conviction, but the lower court then "appealed it"? Procedurally, what does he mean? The "lower court" was not a party to the 9th Circuit proceedings as I read that court's opinion, and the procedure for the losing party at the Circuit Court level seeking further review is almost always to fie a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court--not an appeal--and it is a discretionary review which is rarely granted. The lower court would have no standing to seek certiorari review of the 9th Circuit decision. (Incidentally, the 9th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part.)

 

[AngelKing]

If you flew cargo and didn't ask what was aboard, and upon landing learned that you'd just hauled a hundred kilos of cocaine, do you think you might be held responsible, even though you didn't know what was aboard? Of course you would. You are responsible for knowing what's on board.

Avbug, do you think for one second that with all of the UPS and FedEx flights that fly every night, the crews know what is in all of the containers? I can't even count how many times we have unknowingly brought in drugs, contraband, etc, that was found by customs and nothing has ever been asked of the flight crew. Now if drugs were found in the aircraft structure, that would be a different story.

AK

 

[avbug]

I believe you entirely missed the point.

 

[AngelKing]

I believe you entirely missed the point.

Nope, don't believe I did. You said a Captain should always be responsible for knowing what is in his cargo load. I am telling you that is not always possible. Responsibility can only go so far. You say the Captain is responsible for everything that goes on in his aircaft.

Another example: true story. Captain tells qualified F/o to make sure on his preflight to check the cowling latches. F/O comes back from preflight and says everything is ready to go. Captain then ask if he checked the latches, F/O says he did(it was raining very hard). During the flight one of the cowlings pops open(a Merlin IVC) due to unlatched latches. Crew lands safely. Company tries to fire Captain saying he was responsible. Was overturned by a company mediation board on the grounds the Captain fulfilled his responsibility by tasking the F/O to check the latches. Company wound up firing the F/O and mechanic who signed off the airplane.

AK

 

[A Squared]

The FAA looks at a number of different aspects of the arrangement. One of the things they look at is whether the plane and pilot are supplied by a single entity. It they are, then chances are very good it is a charter and not a lease. There is an NTSB decision on a virtually identical situation, Administrator v. Nix. Nix lost. There was a lease involved, but that didn't make a difference.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Fn Fal

You're my hero.

Notice how "idiotic semantics" was invoked?

"Idiotic semantics" is the last refuge of the tyrant.

I've seen The Bug become a first class picker of nits before, but "idiotic semantics" is apparently a sort of spray-on-wipe-off detergent for other's cogent arguements.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Regarding "illegal charter", if an experienced aviation attorney had drawn up the agreement according to accepted FAA practices for doing wet-leases, that would be another case altogether.

 

[avbug]

Fn Fal

You're my hero.

That hardly comes as a surprise...though it's nothing of which to be proud.

The semantics to which you refer were incorrect...the poster to whom you refer is wrong. However, he's not interested in contributing to the the thread, only to his own game. Illegal weapons, illegal charters, illegal parts...the mind game of a tyrant? Such stupidity.

If something is not permitted by law, it is illegal, and as posters above have so stated, can and will be named as such. That's a fact. Spin it semantically any way you desire, and that doesn't change. A charter contrary to the regulation is contrary to the regulation and therefore illegal, period.

Tyrant for stating the facts? I don't think so. Neither do you, and you know it. That would make you a liar.

That would mean your credibility is gone...which is all one can expect from someone who would see fn fal as a hero. Like I said, no surprise there.

Angel King...you did miss the point completely, as I thought.

 

[FN FAL]

Just skimmed the opinion in US vs. Stewart. The court at one point refers to "legal parts", when referring to some of the component parts. That would seem to imply that there could also be such things as "illegal parts". It is always the person who is "arrested" (FN FAL: The weapon is not arrested; the person is arrested.) Does that make the person illegal? What does "illegal alien" mean and is that term used in any court opinions? (Yes, it is.) And what does FN FAL mean when he states that the 9th Circuit "overturned" Setwart's conviction, but the lower court then "appealed it"? Procedurally, what does he mean? The "lower court" was not a party to the 9th Circuit proceedings as I read that court's opinion, and the procedure for the losing party at the Circuit Court level seeking further review is almost always to fie a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court--not an appeal--and it is a discretionary review which is rarely granted. The lower court would have no standing to seek certiorari review of the 9th Circuit decision. (Incidentally, the 9th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part.)

There are no illegal parts either. I may have misstated what the 9th did or didn't do, but there are no illegal parts or illegal guns.

What you failed to read in your skimming, is that if a person possess parts that can be readily made into a Title II firearm, the possession of that regulated firearm is regulated. Not the parts, not the gun, the possession.

In garden variety firearms Title I firearms, such as the one you buy from a Class I dealer, a felon in possession of firearm is in violation of possessing the firearm. The firearm is not illegal...it's the possession that is regulated. Felons are prohibited from possessing Title II firearms as well.

You're a lawyer...show me one law that says a gun is illegal. Bet you can't...the law will read "possession of a firearm as described in para a through z is illegal or prohibited".

 

[AngelKing]

Angel King...you did miss the point completely, as I thought.

Avbug, your entire life it seems consist of trying to point out how wrong everyone is and how right you are. If anyone points out a mis-statement of yours, that means they missed the point. It seems you are an expert at dishing it out, but not so gracious in taking it.

You said, and I quote,
"If you flew cargo and didn't ask what was aboard, and upon landing learned that you'd just hauled a hundred kilos of cocaine, do you think you might be held responsible, even though you didn't know what was aboard? Of course you would. You are responsible for knowing what's on board."

What point is it that I am missing?
It is amazing how everytime you make post in this forum, it turns into you against everyone else. Get a life dude.

AK

 

[FN FAL]

Avbug, your entire life it seems consist of trying to point out how wrong everyone is and how right you are. If anyone points out a mis-statement of yours, that means they missed the point. It seems you are an expert at dishing it out, but not so gracious in taking it.

You said, and I quote,
"If you flew cargo and didn't ask what was aboard, and upon landing learned that you'd just hauled a hundred kilos of cocaine, do you think you might be held responsible, even though you didn't know what was aboard? Of course you would. You are responsible for knowing what's on board."

How is it possible to miss that point? It is amazing how everytime you make post in this forum, it turns into you against everyone else. Get a life dude

AK

I missed it?

I'm going to guess...Cocaine is probably listed on some table of items the feds call a "controlled substance"? And, possession of a controlled substance is regulated.

Therefore, you can't point at the cocaine and call it an "illegal drug" because it's the possession of cocaine that's illegal.

I'm sorry, UPS pilots who have three tons of cocaine on their flight are not going to prison unless the authorities can prove that they possessed the cocaine.

It is also the "possession" of so called "illicit drugs" that is regulated.

Otherwise, you would have doctors, pharmaceutical companies and pharmacists in prison for possessing such things.

Just like a Class II manufacturer can take an UZI kit he purchased from a gunshow (lawful for all of us to possess if it's minus the receiver), then turn around and assemble it into a machine gun without paying a tax. He is not in illegal possession because he can log the making into his log books and it becomes a Post 1986 dealer sample. You can buy the machine gun kit, build it up into a machine gun and you are in illegal possession of a unregistered machine gun.

That gun wasn't illegal, the possession is what is reglated.

 

[AngelKing]

I missed it?

I'm going to guess...Cocaine is probably listed on some table of items the feds call a "controlled substance"? And, possession of a controlled substance is regulated.

Therefore, you can't point at the cocaine and call it an "illegal drug" because it's the possession of cocaine that's illegal.

I'm sorry, UPS pilots who have three tons of cocaine on their flight are not going to prison unless the authorities can prove that they possessed the cocaine.

It is also the "possession" of so called "illicit drugs" that is regulated.

Otherwise, you would have doctors, pharmaceutical companies and pharmacists in prison for possessing such things.

It seems that anyone who disagrees with Avbug is either missing his point or they are a brightspark(whatever that is).

Fn, maybe I am confused now, but it was avbug who made the ludicrous comment about Captains being responsible for the loads they carry.

AK
ak

 

[FN FAL]

Ok all this arguing about possesion...now where are we on "prohibited operations"?

Lawyer up dudes...what is an illegal charter?


If my wife promises to take me to dinner if I fly her in our plane to the mall of America on Saturday, is that an Illegal charter? If not, what made that a "legal Charter"?

 

[FN FAL]

It seems that anyone who disagrees with Avbug is either missing his point or they are a brightspark(whatever that is).

Fn, maybe I am confused now, but it was avbug who made the ludicrous comment about Captains being responsible for the loads they carry.

AK
ak

Rodger that...I wasn't digging on you. Just trying to make the correlating between possessing "controlled substances" and "illegal drugs". Once again, possession is regulated.

It's not illegal for me to possess the booze. It's not illegal for me to have a BAC of .08. It's not illegal for me to operate the vehicle. But it may be illegal for me to operate the vehicle with a BAC of .08.

Guess what? When the airline pilots were tried in FLA, what was the deal there? "operation"!

Hmmmmm...prohibited operations?

Is it legal for me to operate my car on my own personal property with a BAC of .08 ?

Hmmmmmmm...that operation might just be legal? Or is it just not prohibited?

 

[AngelKing]

Ok all this arguing about possesion...now where are we on "prohibited operations"?

Lawyer up dudes...what is an illegal charter?


If my wife promises to take me to dinner if I fly her in our plane to the mall of America on Saturday, is that an Illegal charter? If not, what made that a "legal Charter"?

I will take a stab at this, you said "our plane" how can it be a charter if you are flying your own plane(yours and wifes), and carrying yourselves? Now if she promised you would get a threesome that night by flying her, that would be considered "good will" :beer: j/k

AK