Over zealous LEA jails 70yo glider pilot over non-existent airspace violation.

[simon]

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html?CMP=ADV:1

- On the return leg from a cross country soaring trip, a 70 year old pilot passes once over a nuclear plant at 1500' MSL. (Pilot was not in breach of any FAA regulation.)
- Law enforcement officers including Homeland Security and the FBI turn up at a nearby airport.
- FBO operator told by LEA that aircraft should be shot down.
- UNICOM operator tells pilot to land immediately.
- Pilot cuts flight short, follows instructions and lands. Met on the ground by LEA and at least 12 LEA vehicles.
- Pilot arrested, handcuffed and thrown in jail overnight. Told: "flying in a no fly zone" (No such thing).
- Pilot not allowed to call anyone to tell them where he was. Wife files overdue aircraft report.
- Pilot later charged with "Breach of Peace".
- A month later, charges were dismissed in exchange for agreeing not to sue the county.

Another example of an over the top shakedown of a pilot who wasn't breaking any law (Remember the arrest of John & Martha King?).

Now I am aware there are are plenty of LEA's that read this forum, but where is the commonsense and civility in this behavior? They have the glider on the ground and the 70 year old. Doesn't the department of Homeland Security, the FBI or the local LEA have anyone to call at the FAA? You would think after 9/11 they would. Handcuffing and throwing an old guy in jail without even allowing him to call his wife to tell her he hadn't gone missing just stinks.

[rframe]

I believe there was also a quote from one of the deputies saying something about "shooting him down".

Frankly, I cannot believe this guy hasn't sued the snot out of everyone involved.

[JeffDG]

I believe there was also a quote from one of the deputies saying something about "shooting him down".

Frankly, I cannot believe this guy hasn't sued the snot out of everyone involved.

Well, the county mounties made him sign away his right to sue in exchange for dropping the "breach of peace" charges.

[rframe]

Well, the county mounties made him sign away his right to sue in exchange for dropping the "breach of peace" charges.

Yeah, I guess what I meant was that I cannot believe any lawyer worth a dime would've went along with that.

[PHall]

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html?CMP=ADV:1

- On the return leg from a cross country soaring trip, a 70 year old pilot passes once over a nuclear plant at 1500' MSL. (Pilot was not in breach of any FAA regulation.)
- Law enforcement officers including Homeland Security and the FBI turn up at a nearby airport.
- FBO operator told by LEA that aircraft should be shot down.
- UNICOM operator tells pilot to land immediately.
- Pilot cuts flight short, follows instructions and lands. Met on the ground by LEA and at least 12 LEA vehicles.
- Pilot arrested, handcuffed and thrown in jail overnight. Told: "flying in a no fly zone" (No such thing).
- Pilot not allowed to call anyone to tell them where he was. Wife files overdue aircraft report.
- Pilot later charged with "Breach of Peace".
- A month later, charges were dismissed in exchange for agreeing not to sue the county.

Another example of an over the top shakedown of a pilot who wasn't breaking any law (Remember the arrest of John & Martha King?).

Now I am aware there are are plenty of LEA's that read this forum, but where is the commonsense and civility in this behavior? They have the glider on the ground and the 70 year old. Doesn't the department of Homeland Security, the FBI or the local LEA have anyone to call at the FAA? You would think after 9/11 they would. Handcuffing and throwing an old guy in jail without even allowing him to call his wife to tell her he hadn't gone missing just stinks.

Well, how was our 70 year old pilot behaving?  If he was being non-coopertive then a little time by himself to cool down might have been called for.
And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

We're not getting the whole story here...

[simon]

Well, how was our 70 year old pilot behaving?  If he was being non-coopertive then a little time by himself to cool down might have been called for.

Nobody has suggested that he was being non-cooperative.

And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

The chart says "power plant". There are no other annotations.

[Critical AOA]

The cops clearly exceeded their authority in this case.  They lacked understanding of the regulations and laws regarding aviation and where aircraft can operate and went off halfcocked.  They demanded that the pilot land which is out of their legal authority to do.  They were wrong on so many counts.  I wonder if they will be held accountable for their actions.

I am not certain that the agreement not to sue will hold up in court.

[JeffDG]

And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

Really?

Here they don't have a restricted area over the Y-12 "National Security Complex" where they store weapons, let alone over power plants.

[Brad]

Darlington has always been overzealous when it comes to the HB Robinson plant.

One of my co-workers when I used to dispatch for SCHP up in that area of SC, who also works part-time for Darlington County 911, said that the nuke plant is apparently required to call LE whenever an aircraft flies over the plant, and the 911 office has a standard response plan. There are even heavy metal partitions in the 911 office that drop down to seal the room if the nuke plant calls them with a certain level of alert. The nuke plant would also call 911 and us (HP) regularly to advise they were doing live-fire drills, in case we got reports of gunfire near the plant.

[JeffDG]

The chart says "power plant". There are no other annotations.

BTW, here's the sectional for the area in question:
http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.40192419173013,-80.15643310906114&chart=301&zoom=1

I don't even see a "Power Plant", just a couple of obstructions.  No MOA, R, P or even NSA in the area.

[Critical AOA]

The article stated as much:

On the Charlotte sectional chart, the nuclear power plant is marked with nothing more than a group obstruction symbol.

[a2capt]

And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.
We're not getting the whole story here...

Really? I've never, in flying since 1996, seen a power plant or similar structure marked off as a any kind of airspace.

So, lets expand a little on your "West Coast" area..

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station: 45M West of Phoenix VFR Chart says "Power Plant"
No Restricted Area. There's a wilderness area to the south and north. In fact, the Power Plant is right smack on Victor 16.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station: Northern San Diego County Coast. The VFR Chart calls this on by name, "San Onofre Power Plant", and this one right next to a Victor Airway, V-23 to be exact. Yes, it depicted as being within R-2503A & D airspace, however that airspace is not for the nuclear gods, it's the US Marines. R2503A is active 0600-2400 to 2000 MSL. R2503D is intermittent with at least a 24 hour advance NOTAM. So for 6 hours of the day you can fly all around the thing. Otherwise for all intents, it's 2,000 AGL when passing through that area. To make matters worse, it's locally not even recognized within a mile of the freeway, unless they put out a NOTAM. But it's not charted that way, caveat emptor.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant: West Southwest of San Luis Obispo, it's not even depicted on the chart -at all- to be seen. Surrounded by some MOA's. Well, that's to be expected. It's just north of Vandenberg AFB. Similarly to the other nuclear plants so far, it's got an airplane magnet nearby, (VOR), and within typical accepted width of an airway (V-27) for obstacle clearance purposes.

Humboldt Bay, Decommissioned, but still an actively being dismantled nuclear site with with fuel rods in proximity. Other than the Class E airspace difference, it's located within an active airport pattern even.  Oh, and Victor 27 for all intents, goes right over it. That's TWO for Victor 27 so far!

Rancho Seco, Decommissioned, located south east of Sacramento, near Elk Grove, it's been largely returned to public use, though the Cooling Towers still stand, the nuclear site is all but reduced to an 11 acre area under NRC control, that still stores dry cask fuel rods. Depicted on the chart as "cooling towers".

Columbia Generating Station, located in central Washington State, it's depiction on the chart is ambiguous at best. There is a "plant" denoted along the river bank, however the actual facility is itself, not located there. This one is also located for all intents, on a Victor Airway, V-187, and other than the varied floor of the Class E airspace, there's nothing here.

That's just a few .. nope. Sorry. No restricted areas. If the nuclear plants are not 'protected', I'm pretty sure the hydro powered sites are not either. For grins, lets look at Hoover Dam. I see that it's under a portion of KLAS Class Bravo, but at 8,000 to 9,000 MSL, with the structure itself below 1,800 MSL, and the airspace to the east drops down to 6,500 MSL, still plenty of space to buzz around up there.

Of course, there are standard FAA restrictions on altitude. 1,000 AGL from the "congested area", etc. That "dome" of influence that surrounds stuff. With all that in mind, while the nuclear power plants don't have no fly zones, the Disney company has managed to get 3,000 AGL TFR's over their parks. That hasn't stopped me from flying over them directly however, as ATC many times has directed a course right over it, at less than the prescribed altitude. In fact, the thing is right to the south of .. a Victor Airway.

[Flying Pig]

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html?CMP=ADV:1
Another example of an over the top shakedown of a pilot who wasn't breaking any law (Remember the arrest of John & Martha King?).

Now I am aware there are are plenty of LEA's that read this forum, but where is the commonsense and civility in this behavior?

Stick to the facts.   John and Martha were never arrested.  They were flying an airplane the had a tail number that was listed as stolen.  Believe it or not, nobody in the LE community has any idea who John and Martha are nor do they probably care.  It took a very brief time frame to clear up the situation and they were sent on their way.  The cops did exactly as they were trained.  As a 16 year cop, LE pilot, former CAP pilot, I will tell you there was nothing wrong with the way John and Martha were handled.   No different than how a stolen car is dealt with on the street.  My area recently had an airplane stolen by a parolee, who then crashed not to far from the airport I work at.  That plane was reported stolen as well.  But because it was John and Martha, the cops should have known who they were?  The FAA failed to update their database when they reissued the tail number.  Hardly the fault of the LE agency that gets notified by the FAA that a stolen airplane is inbound for landing. 

As far as the issue being discussed about the pilot and the power plant.  Him signing any form has nothing to do with being able to sue.  he can still sue all he wants.  If the story is as it reads, he should.  You comment that you know LEOs read this site and you want to know where the common sense and civility is?  So you are assuming that because we wear a badge that we are all for cops making stuff up and tossing people in jail and that we all support each other?

[Critical AOA]

You are correct, no one in their right mind thinks that everyone should know who the Kings are. 

You are also correct in that they were not arrested. 

They were merely held at gunpoint, handcuffed and detained separately in two different police cars.   I guess that is just a fine and dandy way to treat two citizens who had done nothing wrong. 

[Brad]

You are correct, no one in their right mind thinks that everyone should know who the Kings are. 

You are also correct in that they were not arrested. 

They were merely held at gunpoint, handcuffed and detained separately in two different police cars.   I guess that is just a fine and dandy way to treat two citizens who had done nothing wrong.

Cops act on the fact at hand. Sounds to me like the agency that entered the aircraft as stolen in NCIC didn't receive the information that the tail number had been reassigned or they forgot to cancel out the record. Couple that with a record that wasn't quality checked and a dispatcher who's never seen a stolen aircraft record, (I think I've seen a BOLO for 1 on the back of a trailer in my course of 5 years and two different agencies in 3 jurisdictions as a dispatcher) that could potentially result in a misread of the alert.

Whatever happened, occured and the agency reacted appropriately. Until they were able to determine further, they were acting on the assumption that the aircraft was stolen, which is why the Kings were met by law enforcement in the way they were. Once the confusion was resolved, they were released.

It's a non-issue, plain and simple.

[simon]

Those unfamiliar with the King incident (I don't care to mince words on whether this was an arrest or a detainment - David Vandenbroeck summed it up well) can read their account here:

http://johnandmartha.kingschools.com/2010/08/31/our-gunpoint-at-the-airport-ordeal/

Where people with the mindset of Flying Pig and I will probably never see eye to eye on is the point the King's made towards the end of the article: "One thing that still bothers me about this case is that the Santa Barbara Police Department is still treating this case as if it were no big deal. I guess it isn't a big deal if you are on the aiming end of the gun."

Notice as well their closing remark and prediction: "We just feel that drawing guns on people is dangerous business—not to be done unless it is absolutely necessary. And it will continue to happen to other pilots unless the system is changed."

[Eclipse]

Define "necessary". (Hindsight is awesome).

Beyond that, seriously, why is this even news (for either story).

[Buzz]

Well, how was our 70 year old pilot behaving?  If he was being non-coopertive then a little time by himself to cool down might have been called for.
And I don't know about South Carolina, but every Nuclear Power plant I've seen out here on the West Coast has a Restricted area around/over it.

Where in the law do you find anything to give you the idea that local law enforcement agencies have any legal authority to enforce FAA regulations . . ?

[simon]

Define "necessary". (Hindsight is awesome).

Regardless of what I think is necessary, clearly it is going to end up being whatever LE think is appropriate in the situation. I just don't think Martha King (In the attached photo, seen exiting the Cessna 172 at gunpoint) looks like she is going to pull a Machete granny move. In the King case, the Santa Barbara Chief of Police apologized, most likely in no small part due to the King's connections. But in the case of the glider pilot Robin Fleming (Photo also attached - another dangerous looking guy armed with - a GLIDER), the county played hardball with the charges unless HE walked away. Not sure how many of us would feel like doing that. Maybe he was just a guy that wanted to put it behind him and get on with life. We may never know. But was over a dozen LE vehicles an appropriate level of resources? I can't believe THAT much was necessary.

Beyond that, seriously, why is this even news (for either story).

Well that is of course subjective, but I will give it a shot. Firstly it is aviation news and the kind of news that IMHO does raise a few eyebrows in the aviation community. Secondly because it shows pilots they need to be careful. Even if they are technically not breaking the law, to watch out for LEOs that might think they are and to be aware of how something seemingly innocuous can turn out to be quite something else. Finally, in the hope that events like this, if widely circulated, might lead to some changes. After all, the last thing anyone wants is for an ignorant LEO to start shooting at a plane. The Kings went to work to make changes. AOPA handled Fleming's case. The best thing that could come out of is a general consensus amongst LEOs that if they aren't sure of what pilots can and can't do, to call the FAA. You'd think after 911 that they might have a phone number.

[Eclipse]

Everything raises eyebrows in the aviation community.