Jet Pilot Goes to Jail for Buzzing Santa Monica Pier (video)

Mumble what??

Look at the WHOLE site www.aviationcriminal.com

The article just shows how stupid he is!!

Couple things..First, WHY ARE YOU YELLING???? Second, call me naive, but I have not noticed that the public has a negative view towards pilots. I actually have never heard that at all. I know some people don't like flying (crazy, loony people), but never a bad light towards pilots. Moving back to the topic, what an idiot. Granted if I was on that pier I probably would have found a lasso and found my way onto that plane for a ride. Still a complete danger to himself and the public. Inexcusable to say the least. My two pennies..which is all I have left!

People like you give Pilots and Aviation a bad name. Overall Aviation and Pilots are not looked upon poorly by the "Public". Then you connect Aviaiton and Pilots with money. Sounds like you have a personal issue brewing here.

Aero-Vodochody L-39 Albatross

His certificate was revoked for a year by the FAA for MULTIPLE violations on that flight including the following:

a. Section 91.117(a) [flying at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots below 10,000 feet];
b. Section 91.117(c) [flying at an indicated airspeed in excess of 200 knots while operating below Class B airspace];
c. Section 91.119(a) [operating at an altitude where an emergency landing cannot be effected without undue hazard
to persons or property];
d. Section 91.119(b) [operating over a congested area below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet];
e. Section 91.119(c) [operating at an altitude of below 500 feet over an other than congested
area];
f. Section 91.303(c) [performing aerobatics in Class B, Class C, Class D or Class E Airspace];
g. Section 93.303(d) [conducting aerobatics within 4 nautical 3 miles of the centerline of a
Federal airway];
h. Section 91.303(e) [conducting aerobatics at an altitude of below 1,500 feet above the
surface]; and i. Section 91.13(a) [operating an aircraft so as to endanger the life or property of another].

He had no authorization, busted Santa Monica and LAX airspace etc. One of the lifeguards said he was so close she felt the heat from the engine as he went by. Can you imagine if he had hit a seagull (Santa Monica Pier is seagull central)? While this would have been a great thing to witness if you were EXPECTING it and if it was flown by someone qualified with authorization what this idiot did was completely unacceptable on every level.

He's also being sued for fraud by the people he was making the movie with. The movie has yet to be completed.

Top Gun?

You are spot on what were they thinking of

No what I said is correct. His certificate was revoked and he could not reapply for a new certificate for a period of one year. After that year he was able to reapply, he had to take all check rides and such that any new pilot would have to do. Apparently the FAA doesn't have the ability to actually ground someone forever. Or if they do, this case wasn't considered serious enough (because no one died). He does NOT have the same certificate he had on that day. He did get one in Canada during that year and the FAA found out and told him he couldn't use it to fly here.

It's posted now because the appeal hearing just ended and the sentence was imposed. It took 3 years to get it through the courts in Los Angeles.

I hope it at least makes it really hard to get reinstated. Especially considering the attempt to bypass by going to Canada.
I wonder if the Canada MOT knew about it?

Since I got that directly from the FAA who investigated the case I'm reasonably sure they are correct.

Jerry- What does that mean? (Jusy incorrect not tries at all)

It's N139CK

look me up on facebook. see wall post there.

You any relation to the subject David G. Riggs?

Seems both the FAA and the court disagree with you. I'd be willing to bet the life guard who testified she felt the heat from the engine would disagree with you that he was never below 1000 feet as well. I also know of at least 2 fathers that were there with their children who would disagree as well. Basically you are saying what gets said so often, no one died, so it's okay. The problem with that is that the person who has to die to prove to you that it's dangerous probably wouldn't appreciate dying for some cowboys idiocy.

Beaver; you are obviously a moron and have no regard what so ever for the safety of the public, the laws, FAA regulations or the perception of general aviation. You must know quite a bit more then all the witnesses, the video evidence and the FAA. Even Stevie Wonder can see what a stupid illegal act this was in very congested airspace. But it would seem you know better then everyone involved. I would have to think only Riggs himself would post something that stupid in support of this Santa Monica fiasco. Enjoy your 60 days community labor cleaning the Santa Monica beach..

You asked how it was illegal. If you look above you will see the list of FAA regulations that he broke. At least, according to the FAA. I assume they have some experience in these matters. As for the rest, I totally agree with you that an eyewitness account by a non-pilot could be incorrect, but that is also another reason why this was an asshat stunt. He did nothing but scare a lot of people. This isn't something that would make a kid want to be a pilot, it's something that would make them afraid of planes every time they see one.

I don't live in a small box. I just happen to know a lot about this case, and I know that you are wrong.

To decide that the lifeguard did not "feel the heat of any exhaust" is pretty radical since you've seen only the one minute video, not spoken to her or anyone else that was on the pier that day and decided to make your decision based on nothing but the video.

It's a good thing law enforcement actually does more than that before deciding.

You should also consider that assuming your claims of military jet pilot training etc are true YOU might be qualified to do a flight like this but I would assume you would get property authorization. The pilot in question does NOT have those qualifications or experience (although he has falsely claimed to have such) and the safety of his plane was also brought into question during the investigation.

murderer...

Military pilots are not subject to FAA regs. They don't have pilots licenses.