[Paul_Sengupta]

FAA inspectors and CFIs tell us that in about 10 percent of the 709 ride matters the pilot involved has kept flying too long and, because of the realities of aging, can no longer meet ACS standards

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-articles/bob-hoover-faa-fights.html

Sometimes the FAA just want to "get" people.

[Iceman]

@A4 Pacific, I’m fully aware what caught her out, but it would be up to the feds to prove that she had intentionally turned off her transponder. Yes, I know that, in all probability, she did, but no surface radar is going to pick someone up at that level (unless it’s over the sea). Working Cardiff Radar, I was once at extreme range for them (somewhere near Hartland Point) when there last transmission before I contacted Newquay was “pop up traffic below you, indicating 100 ft”. I looked down to see an ASR helicopter lifting off a ship.

Iceman

[A4 Pacific]

Iceman

but it would be up to the feds to prove that she had intentionally turned off her transponder.

The feds don’t have to ‘prove’ anything. (It’s not a court of law) I agree, it’s beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

I suspect she’s been flying too long and has fallen into precisely the thinking gladly expounded by some contributors here?

Some people just fly on for too long!

[Iceman]

It will be interesting to see if this was indeed her last flight, intentional or otherwise, or if she takes the 709 (or is indeed given the option).

Iceman

[rf3flyer]

It would have to be the Millau Bridge, just to annoy the French, then do a runner for the UK, never to visit France again. There’s no extradition treaty, post-Brexit, is there ?
Iceman

Hearsay I know but I believe a few years ago a couple of French pilots did just that to us by flying their single seat homebuilts under the Kessock Bridge at Inverness. Hearsay further has it that they then flew back to France NORDO!

[Wide-Body]

She still knows a heck of a lot about flying and has a great deal to share in a very interesting and enjoyable way.

Thousands if not tens of thousands know a heck of a lot about flying. Many of them will be able to write in an engaging fashion. A few of them will be consummate professionals.

This ageing pilot didn’t just intentionally break the rules. This particular pilot shouldn’t just have ‘known better’! This pilot didn’t just attempt to conceal their rule breaking. This pilot still attempts to deny that concealment rather than just holding their hands up. To me that fact alone suggests this pilot thinks a lot of themselves, though I have also heard that elsewhere.

Whether they like it or not, people with high profiles become role models. In this business it’s important we pick the right ones.

This pilot is teaching all the wrong lessons and it’s that they will forever be associated with.

I’ve been reading Flying magazine ever since spending a weekend in the company of Dick Collins almost thirty years ago. They should cease any association with pilots who think they are Tom Cruise’s Maverick’!

You are totally correct and I can not disagree.

However, there is a well kept in control bit of me that would have








had the lead as we went through the gap under the bridge.

[patowalker]

The article states that she turned her transponder off. I can’t find anything in the regulations that states that she had to have her transponder on when operating in Class G airspace.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.215

She was more than 30 nm away from Cincinnati so outside their Mode-C veil and thus conformant with transponder operations in the vicinity of a Class-B (14 CFR § 91.215 (b) 2). The highlighted green circle shows the position of the bridge.
Iceman

The flight under the bridge was only the spur for an investigation. She flew back to her base, Cincinnati Municipal / Lunken Field in the TMZ, and spoke to Cincinnati Approach, who told her her transponder wasn't working.

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye, but the FAA can only provide details of their investigation in response to FOIA requests.

[A4 Pacific]

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye

You may very well be correct. This particular pilot is something of a hero to the non conformists. How many other deviations from the law are less widely known?

These ‘incidents’ can sometimes be just the tip of an iceberg. An indication of habituality.

[Flyin'Dutch']

@A4 Pacific Very true

[Red]

Did she harm anyone?...No
good for her

[TopCat]

Did she harm anyone?...No
good for her

Oh oh....

[A4 Pacific]

Did she harm anyone?...No
good for her

99 drunk drivers out of 100 don’t harm anyone either.

‘Good for’ those 99??

Oh oh indeed.