No, I dont think its that simple at all. Rape is not under any FARs that I know of!! #2 How can a state regulate what is careless flying when the airspace is controlled by the feds??
Weather rape or any other crime is considered under the administrative regulations (United States Code of Fedeal Regulations) or not isn't relevant to a criminal case. If the crime took place, it falls under criminal law...not just administrative law.
The regulations you think of as the "FARs" are administrative law. Regulations, really, prescribed by the same body that interprets and enforces them. Not so with criminal law. This is "real" law, and it always has hold over you. Don't think that because your wheels don't touch the ground, you're exempt from criminal law.
You've completely neglected to consider civil law. This is the law regarding weather the estate of the deceased may sue or bring a lawsuit. Yes, they may. They can do whatever they like. The "FARs" have no bearing on their ability to sue or win. The FAA may take it's recourse in certicate action and sanctions within the scope of their administrative authority. They may also seek civil sanctions in the form of fines, and have the ability to press for criminal prosecution, also.
However, the FAA doesn't have the corner on the market with respect to prosecution. Commit a criminal act with an airplane, rest assured that you stand a very high probability of being caught, and being tried by an authority that makes its business of doing so in the criminal court. In this case, the State of Florida is pressing criminal charges. This isn't new, it isn't a new trend, and it's always been possible.
In this case, a pilot disregarded safety and made a low pass, striking and killing someone in the air. Had he distracted a motorist who lost control and died or killed someone, chances are he would be facing the same prosecution.
Several years ago I was on a skydive at DeLand which was commemorating the Drop Zone Owners (DZO) birthday. At the conclusion of that skydive, as I was approaching the landing area outside the drop zone buildings, the jump aircraft made a low pass just beneath me. I was setting up to land and didn't see him coming. I only saw him pass directly beneath me. We were close enough that upon landing his wake interfered with my canopy and I had a hard landing. I was not happy with his decision to make that pass, or that act. It goes on all the time, but that doesn't justify the act. Had he struck me or anybody else, I'd be very much for criminal charges.
The airspace is regulated in operation by the FAA. However, the FAA by no means has the corner on the authority to prosecute for criminal acts. Merely because something isn't mentioned in the "FAR's" doesn't mean there isn't a law against it. The FAA has 91.13 and a host of other regulations available to take certificate action against the pilot, but the pilot has also vioalted state and federal laws, and an injury and death has occured as the result.
The pilot is going to find himself dealing with civil, criminal, and administrative law, and that's all there is to it. This isn't a new, disturbing trend. It isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. He decided to have some fun, and killed a jumper. That's a criminal act, and should be treated like one.
If the pilot flew into the jumper on purpose I could see him being charged, but if he didn't do it on purpose, then this is a very dangerous direction for all of us.
Ah, so it's okay to kill someone by mistake. So long as we don't intend for someone to die, we should just chalk it up to experience? Someone commits a dangerous, stupid act and kills someone, and you think prosecuting them for the death is dangerous to the rest of us?
Hello! This is reality...welcome. Don't let it shock your system.
Also by skydiving you are already putting your life at risk and it does happen when jumpers and planes collide.
I'm not putting my life at risk when I skydive. I'm engaging in a sport that's recognized worldwide, and from which I have every reasonable expectation of walking away. I have a legitimate privilege and right to engage in and accept responsibility for my actions, my pack job, in freefall, and as a canopy pilot when landing.
You cannot compare a skydive, with being struck by a careless pilot making a reckless act, in a place he shouldn't be, below an altitude where he should be, while violating numerous regulations. You might as well compare bull horns to chicken eggs...there is no comparison between the two.
By your logic, then, it's okay to put a .308 bullet through the skull of a NASCAR driver during a race. After all, he could crash and get hurt or killed anyway, so why not just do what nature might otherwise do? Or how about this...everybody is going to die anyway, so what's the harm in killing anyone, outright? Kill them all, right?
Your logic defies reason, even childish reason.
But my main reason for posting this is lets say your flying a Challenger out of PBI and 10kts prior to V1 a tire burst and you go off the rwy and someone gets killed. Now will someone say hey you didnt do a good enough preflight on those tires, we are going to charge you with manslaughter?
Again, your logic is severely fouled. An equipment failure that causes an accident or incident is not the same as flying an airplane directly at someone and striking them, severing their legs, and killing them. Not at all. You might have a better chance at comparison if you put someone on the runway directly in front of the challenger and then began the takeoff roll, and struck the person standing on the runway. Except that even then, the person on the runway would still be out of place. But not the skydiver, on a legitimate skydive, setting up to land (who incidentally has the legal right of way). It was the airplane committing a dangerous act, which resulted in a criminal act...in this case pick your poison. Negligent homicide, manslaughter, or so on.
What about all the paperwork you sign before you jump saying you can't sue anyone if you die?? I guess there isn't anything that says the government can't charge you with a death or injury?
A fundamental rule is that you can't sign away the rights of your estate. Your estate doesn't exist until you are dead. Once you die, your estate comes into being, and the rights and privileges of your estate are not bound by your covenant not to sue. The waiver may say you promise your estate won't sue, but it's meaningless, because your estate does not exist, and you cannot sign for the estate where it does not exist. This isn't a living will and testament.
If you violate a law, you can be charged, period. Why is that so hard for every one to understand??
