37 replies to this topic

[simfgta]

They were flying a C172 to Santa Barbara and their N# used to be for a stolen aircraft, what a scare. Heres a podcast and a small article of the issue

Podcast with Martha King:
http://www.avweb.com...kw=RelatedStory

Article:
http://www.avweb.com...t_203205-1.html

[_NW_]

So they where arrested for flying a 172 that has the same registration of one that was stolen?

Registrations change..   I wonder if the Kings are going to file any claims for wrongful arrest..   that's a serious issue against law enforcement officers.

[LA_PHX]

Domo, on Aug 30 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

So they where arrested for flying a 172 that has the same registration of one that was stolen?

Registrations change..   I wonder if the Kings are going to file any claims for wrongful arrest..   that's a serious issue against law enforcement officers.

The officers aren't the ones at fault.  It is the ones operating the database and not keeping it up to date.  The local police acted on good faith that the claim from the Intelligence Center was correct.  So it is a fault with the Intelligence Center or the FAA not providing the information that the stolen airplane's registration was cancelled.

[simfgta]

LA_BOS, on Aug 30 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

The officers aren't the ones at fault.  It is the ones operating the database and not keeping it up to date.  The local police acted on good faith that the claim from the Intelligence Center was correct.  So it is a fault with the Intelligence Center or the FAA not providing the information that the stolen airplane's registration was cancelled.

Yeah I agree, and like Martha said its a big Miscommunication within the agencies, oh wait that happens everyday in the US!

[THBatMan8]

LA_BOS, on Aug 30 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

The officers aren't the ones at fault.  It is the ones operating the database and not keeping it up to date.  The local police acted on good faith that the claim from the Intelligence Center was correct.  So it is a fault with the Intelligence Center or the FAA not providing the information that the stolen airplane's registration was cancelled.

No one is really at fault here. Misconceptions happen all of the time, and as long as you cooperate with the authorities you won't have any problems. If a bank robbery occurs and your vehicle matches the description of the getaway car then guess what, you're getting detained for questioning.

[LA_PHX]

THBatMan8, on Aug 30 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

No one is really at fault here. Misconceptions happen all of the time, and as long as you cooperate with the authorities you won't have any problems. If a bank robbery occurs and your vehicle matches the description of the getaway car then guess what, you're getting detained for questioning.

Well, in all honesty, something like this is completely avoidable if the database is maintained properly and information flow from the FAA to the agencies tracking stolen aircraft is good.  But obviously there was a breakdown somewhere.  So you could very well put the blame on the FAA and/or the El Paso Intelligence Center.  This really isn't anything like the case you mentioned as in this case it was known the N number no longer belonged to the stolen plane...but someone oopsed with the records.

But I was just stating that the officers certainly aren't to blame and they really can't be sued for anything as they didn't do anything wrong...they just did their job.

[THBatMan8]

LA_BOS, on Aug 30 2010, 06:20 PM, said:

Well, in all honesty, something like this is completely avoidable if the database is maintained properly and information flow from the FAA to the agencies tracking stolen aircraft is good.  But obviously there was a breakdown somewhere.  So you could very well put the blame on the FAA and/or the El Paso Intelligence Center.  This really isn't anything like the case you mentioned as in this case it was known the N number no longer belonged to the stolen plane...but someone oopsed with the records.

But I was just stating that the officers certainly aren't to blame and they really can't be sued for anything as they didn't do anything wrong...they just did their job.

Whenever a new registration is filed the database is automatically updated. This isn't the FAA's fault but the fault of whoever reported the aircraft stolen, as they failed to inform law enforcement agencies that the craft was recovered. It's not the FAA's obligation to inform law enforcement agencies of a stolen vessel, as they may or may not know the aircraft is stolen in the first place. That's just like blaming the DOT for the same situation with automobiles.

Edited by THBatMan8, 30 August 2010 - 05:29 PM.

[_NW_]

There are dozens of registration websites on the net..   but the local FSDO has the most up to date registration info..   the article never said anything about anyone calling the FSDO to verify the validity of the information.

[LA_PHX]

THBatMan8, on Aug 30 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

Whenever a new registration is filed the database is automatically updated. This isn't the FAA's fault but the fault of whoever reported the aircraft stolen, as they failed to inform law enforcement agencies that the craft was recovered. It's not the FAA's obligation to inform law enforcement agencies of a stolen vessel, as they may or may not know the aircraft is stolen in the first place. That's just like blaming the DOT for the same situation with automobiles.

I misread a certain part so you are right, the FAA isn't to blame at all.  But it still sounds to me that the authorities in Wichita didn't do what they should have or the agency controlling the database in this situation didn't do something correctly.

Quote

On landing he was met by Wichita police who quickly ironed out the mixup and sent him on his way. Why that didn't trigger an update to the databases that were consulted to create the situation in Santa Barbara is a question sure to come up as aviation group leaders...

There was no need for this to happen again and someone is to blame for that.  Who is that person (or system)?  Well, that is what an investigation on the incident should find out but this isn't like the situation you mentioned.  In this case, that N number was already confirmed to not be on a stolen aircraft anymore.

Domo, on Aug 30 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

So they where arrested for flying a 172 that has the same registration of one that was stolen?

Just to clarify something, they don't appear to have actually been arrested.  They were detained so the investigation could be conducted but they weren't formally arrested and charged.

Edited by LA_BOS, 30 August 2010 - 06:12 PM.

[ThrottleUp]

I am just shaking my head......these are two such well known professionals.....and the coppers had weapons pointed at them even after it became obvious who they were? I can understand why they had them drawn but surely once they both stepped out they should have been lowered.

Glad they are ok, they are legends.

[LA_PHX]

ThrottleUp, on Aug 30 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

I am just shaking my head......these are two such well known professionals.....and the coppers had weapons pointed at them even after it became obvious who they were? I can understand why they had them drawn but surely once they both stepped out they should have been lowered.

Glad they are ok, they are legends.

No.

Just like a felony stop of a stolen automobile, officers draw their guns until the suspects are in custody.  And to us aviation fans, they are very well known.  But before I was into aviation, I had never once heard of these people.  So chances are, these police officers had no idea who the Kings were.  Sure they don't look like your normal plane thieves but you still have to take extreme caution as an officer when you are told this is a stolen plane/car/boat/truck/etc.  As long as they do what they are told to do by the officers, then no one will have a problem.  If they don't do what they are told, then that is where problems arise and they could be charged and the officers will be more aggressive.

Edited by LA_BOS, 30 August 2010 - 06:24 PM.

[ThrottleUp]

Oh I see...so American coppers draw guns when people are pulled over and stuff or is it only when a vehicle is reported stolen?

Yea I guess I see your point about them not being well know outside aviation.

[LA_PHX]

ThrottleUp, on Aug 30 2010, 04:30 PM, said:

Oh I see...so American coppers draw guns when people are pulled over and stuff or is it only when a vehicle is reported stolen?

Yea I guess I see your point about them not being well know outside aviation.

On a normal traffic stop where someone is pulled over for something like not using their turn signal, no, they won't draw their weapons unless something arises.  But for a stolen vehicle, you will often see them draw their weapons due to the seriousness of the situation.  But by draw their weapons I mean they will stand by their car with their weapons drawn and order the occupants out and most likely have them walk back towards them and go to the ground so they can be safely detained.

Wikipedia does a fair job explaining such felony stops:

Quote

A felony traffic stop occurs when police stop a vehicle in that the driver is already known to be a suspect in a crime (such as an armed robbery, bank robbery, rape, etc). In such a traffic stops, police strongly prefer to have as many officers present as possible before effecting the arrest.

During such stops, officers will have their weapons drawn and typically over a loudspeaker announce for the driver to show their hands, step out and face away from the officer, walking backwards towards him. The driver is then taken into custody and the vehicle is typically searched.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Traffic_stop

Edited by LA_BOS, 30 August 2010 - 06:35 PM.

[ThrottleUp]

Ahh ok...thanks for explaining all that LA BOS  

[LA_PHX]

ThrottleUp, on Aug 30 2010, 04:35 PM, said:

Ahh ok...thanks for explaining all that LA BOS  

You're very welcome.

[Element94]

End the war on drugs....then this would've never happened.

[LA_PHX]

Element94, on Aug 30 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

End the war on drugs....then this would've never happened.

[THBatMan8]

LA_BOS, on Aug 30 2010, 07:12 PM, said:

But it still sounds to me that the authorities in Wichita didn't do what they should have or the agency controlling the database in this situation didn't do something correctly.

The authorities did exactly what they should have. The person(s) who reported the aircraft stolen are to blame here, not the authorities or the FAA.

[LA_PHX]

THBatMan8, on Aug 30 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

The authorities did exactly what they should have. The person(s) who reported the aircraft stolen are to blame here, not the authorities or the FAA.

If the authorities who were first told to stop the plane with that N number (in Wichita) found out it wasn't stolen, they should have alerted the agency giving them that information in the first place and the database should have been updated.  It is one thing if this was the first time they stopped the plane carrying this N number, it is another thing if it is the second time.

[THBatMan8]

LA_BOS, on Aug 30 2010, 09:58 PM, said:

If the authorities who were first told to stop the plane with that N number (in Wichita) found out it wasn't stolen, they should have alerted the agency giving them that information in the first place and the database should have been updated.  It is one thing if this was the first time they stopped the plane carrying this N number, it is another thing if it is the second time.

It's not the LEO's job to decide someone's guilt or innocence. As the saying goes, "Shenanigans roll downhill'.

Edited by THBatMan8, 30 August 2010 - 09:03 PM.