I would still seek compensation via litigation.

 

I'm all for security but this was just nuts and over the top. Were they bored?

I thought about this not knowing how to respond. While I feel the authorities were right to respond, I also feel that they were too harsh on this pilot. He did not deserve to be thrown in jail, not even for a minute. What were they thinking? I cannot imagine a peace officer placing a 70 year old man in jail, not unless he was confrontational in some way. Even then, you don't throw such a person in with the general population.

 

I am glad this story got out. I think the officers that threw this man in jail should be disciplined.

 

John

Further, nowhere except in this thread is there any mention of him trying to find lift in the smokestack plume.

 

It said he flew directly through the area above the powerplant which usually puts you through the plume. I think people unfortunately look at the view through a single side.

 

I witnessed someone get killed a few days ago by the police while I was eating breakfast in my crashpad. The public has been in an uproar because they think it was too extreme. Unfortunately all these people didn't witness this driver running into many cars and trying to run over officers on foot while he was on his rampage. Even though his life was taken, there would have been an even larger uproar if innocent people were killed because of him not being stopped earlier. Look at both sides of what was seen and reported. He violated airspace down low. He said he estimated his height at about 1500'. It may have been lower or seemed lower because of the wingspan of gliders. So much is taken one sided from AOPA for the pilot as its obvious cause. Stand back and try to look at the whole situation, not a one-sided article.

...trying to find a thermal in a smoke stack is not the best idea.

 

It looks to me like you suggested he was trying to find lift in the smokestack plume.

 

Not sure why you singled me out of all the anti-police posts here either and I don't appreciate it. I have a right to my opinion and that opinion is based on my life experiences. Does Ruby Ridge ring any bells? Yeah, I lived it...

 

Do you have a link to the "other side of the story" BTW? I'd like to read that.

Further news:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/397548-glider-incident-no-threat-to-freedom-to-fly/

 

Hook

He violated airspace down low.

He did? Where did you come up with that idea? The NOTAM regarding flight around or over nuclear plants is not a prohibition, it is simply a recommendation...

Not sure why you singled me out of all the anti-police posts here either and I don't appreciate it. I have a right to my opinion and that opinion is based on my life experiences. Does Ruby Ridge ring any bells? Yeah, I lived it...

 

I didn't single you out. When I was writing the post I forgot that sentence up there with the reply to the smoke stack.

Do you have a link to the "other side of the story" BTW? I'd like to read that.

 

There is rarely a side of the police that gets put out. Having family members and friends in the police I know how much it sucks for them. The problem is uneducated writers trying to write on a subject they know nothing about. Happens in newspapers and aviation articles all the time. Every profession can point to multiple articles that are hilarious because the writer knows nothing about what they are writing about.

 

He did? Where did you come up with that idea? The NOTAM regarding flight around or over nuclear plants is not a prohibition, it is simply a recommendation...

 

Doesn't have to be a prohibition, the FAA can put this on it and he can be in violation:

 

 

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

 

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b ) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

The thing is with the police in a situation like this is....They arrive on a scene with reports, those reports would have been something like an aircraft violating airspace over a nuclear power plant....

 

Then the Police will talk to various eyewitnesses on the ground. You bet from those witnesses they would have heard different accounts from, a glider to a high tech looking fighter, low flying etc etc etc. witnesses can never be fully reliable.

 

Their was a report of a comment from an officer saying to shoot it down with the revolvers but....that sounded to me like it was likely a comment because they are not trained to use their guns in that way. I wasn't there but I think perhaps a comment like that was exactly that...a comment.

 

Those guys in blue on the ground would have had various reports and had to deal with the situation with what people were telling them. By the time they caught up with the glider pilot they probably were not happy campers any more.

 

Like I said above, this has never happened before, not in any police training manual, so I bet they did the best they could with the information they had.

 

As for holding the pilot overnight without reason, that is protocol these days with those various terrorism bills that were passed, unfortunate for the Pilot to get all caught up in that mess but this is the world we live in now.

 

Cheers

Imagine what would have happened if he flew over the power plant and downloaded software at the same time.

 

On a more serious note. I recall discussions about the safety of nuclear installations when it comes to plane impacts. I think the later installations feature the category of a F-4 as the reference size (and speed?) they have to withstand.

 

I fly out of 4A6 in north Alabama we have an unfinished nuke plant which work was stopped on over 30 years ago at about 75 percent but still none of us local pilots will fly near it. I dont fly near the nuke plants in FSX it wouldn't surprise me if the government tracked that sorta stuff since terrorists used flight sim for training.

Now that you say it. Maybe FSX doesn't only download the weather but also upload.. something.

Now that you say it. Maybe FSX doesn't only download the weather but also upload.. something.

 

Yea, that got me thinking as well. I have nothing to worry about as majority of my FSX activity is as professional as an arm chair pilot could make it (other then skipping out on checklists) I try to keep it as real as it gets...

 

But yea, it would have been possible to setup some kind of reporting system for questionable repeated flying patterns. I doubt it happened but not hard to do.

I have a bad feeling about this.

That does it, I'm goimg back to FS2002 :smile:

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

 

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b ) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

I knew someone would cite that. The catch all, end all if there's any question. Due deference...