Mixed standards.... Actions lie louder than words.
Thread Starter
Mixed standards.... Actions lie louder than words.
If you fly a B737 in the USA without a license, whats the chance you end up in Gitmo? But... if you fly, say a US aircraft in Africa such as a B737 on a PPL, and no type rating, and play around on operations in say... Gabon, then when the FAA is aware of it, what do you think they would do? Gitmo? or nothing?
Big furore re the US pilot flying US RPT with falsified licenses, but a US aircraft in Africa? Hey Mr FAA, what do you do about that? recently, the FAA were happy to pull the ATPL of a US pilot that just was onboard an aircraft that had a TXPDR failure within the DC SFRA, apparently different standards of application of the rules exist. The guy wasn't the PIC or PF... so the story goes...)
So, when the FAA and US govt black ban foreign countries for failure to comply with their SOFA standards, what hypocrisy is it to effectively say F*** O** when their aircraft blantantly disregard the standards of ICAO and the sovereign states that they are being allowed to operate into.
What a program.
N103HA at FOOL 24 DEC 2006
Nationale Regionale Transport - NRT Boeing 737-242/Adv Libreville (LBV / FOOL) Gabon, December 24, 2006 N103HA (cn 21186/438) First jet for this airline. Operating since last week to mainly domestic destinations. Started ops last week
N103HA at FOOL 18 DEC 2006
N103HA (cn 21186/438) New operator, pictured on a stormy morning in Libreville
Operated by....
Really!, "Dog ate my homework...".
with....
the captains FAA license...
and the FO's FAA license.
These guys were run out of town by.... the CAA of Equatorial Guinea, which is rather impressive that EG has more concern over the operation of FAA aircraft than the US government, FAA and DoJ! So, who should be black banned here again? (no pun, please)
. Heck, even the Gabonese CAA are reported to have fined the "PIC", (yes, the guy with the PPL and no rating, not the young FO who was apparently the "guy with the qualifications, although they were received some 3-4 months after the flights... ooops 
)
Abigail Adams, Letter to John Adams (1774)
Now, yes, you absolutely can operate a FAA aircraft on a foreign license, under the terms of TITLE 14--Aeronautics and Space CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBCHAPTER D--AIRMEN, PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS Subpart B--AIRCRAFT RATINGS AND PILOT AUTHORIZATIONS 61.77 Special purpose pilot authorization: Operation of a civil aircraft of the United States and leased by a non-U.S. citizen.
If you apply, if you are under 60 (in 2006...) etc etc etc...
Amen to that.
"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself". Lois McMaster Bujold, "A Civil Campaign", 1999
FDR
Hot Springs
Big furore re the US pilot flying US RPT with falsified licenses, but a US aircraft in Africa? Hey Mr FAA, what do you do about that? recently, the FAA were happy to pull the ATPL of a US pilot that just was onboard an aircraft that had a TXPDR failure within the DC SFRA, apparently different standards of application of the rules exist. The guy wasn't the PIC or PF... so the story goes...)
So, when the FAA and US govt black ban foreign countries for failure to comply with their SOFA standards, what hypocrisy is it to effectively say F*** O** when their aircraft blantantly disregard the standards of ICAO and the sovereign states that they are being allowed to operate into.
What a program.
N103HA at FOOL 24 DEC 2006
Nationale Regionale Transport - NRT Boeing 737-242/Adv Libreville (LBV / FOOL) Gabon, December 24, 2006 N103HA (cn 21186/438) First jet for this airline. Operating since last week to mainly domestic destinations. Started ops last week
N103HA at FOOL 18 DEC 2006
N103HA (cn 21186/438) New operator, pictured on a stormy morning in Libreville
Operated by....
Really!, "Dog ate my homework...".
with....
the captains FAA license...
and the FO's FAA license.
These guys were run out of town by.... the CAA of Equatorial Guinea, which is rather impressive that EG has more concern over the operation of FAA aircraft than the US government, FAA and DoJ! So, who should be black banned here again? (no pun, please)
. Heck, even the Gabonese CAA are reported to have fined the "PIC", (yes, the guy with the PPL and no rating, not the young FO who was apparently the "guy with the qualifications, although they were received some 3-4 months after the flights... ooops )"We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them".
Abigail Adams, Letter to John Adams (1774)
Now, yes, you absolutely can operate a FAA aircraft on a foreign license, under the terms of TITLE 14--Aeronautics and Space CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBCHAPTER D--AIRMEN, PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS Subpart B--AIRCRAFT RATINGS AND PILOT AUTHORIZATIONS 61.77 Special purpose pilot authorization: Operation of a civil aircraft of the United States and leased by a non-U.S. citizen.
If you apply, if you are under 60 (in 2006...) etc etc etc...
Amen to that.
"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself". Lois McMaster Bujold, "A Civil Campaign", 1999
FDR
Hot Springs
Last edited by fdr; 22nd Aug 2010 at 12:42.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, succintly, what is your point? That two foreign nationals are operating an "N" registered jet aircraft in a third country and their FAA paperwork may not be in order?
Maybe their Australian licenses reflect proper training and experience? Maybe the local authorities have licensed them?
I'll call Hillary and get her right on the FAA side of it!
C2j
Maybe their Australian licenses reflect proper training and experience? Maybe the local authorities have licensed them?
I'll call Hillary and get her right on the FAA side of it!
C2j
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had oversight at the FAA, and all this is correct I'd turn up to paint out the reg and just orphan the aircraft - then charge them for the privilege!
I need to re-brief myself here as this is slightly outside of what I normally deal with, but, as there is a weight limit above which you CANNOT EVER be part 91, you can be private ops but off the top of my head it's Part 122 whatever the subtext if you're blindly adhering to 91 you're breaking the law. That 73' must be close to the MTOW limit for the regulation.
This sort of thing really pisses me off as it leads to the needless and over regulation that simply blights the professionals in the business.
I need to re-brief myself here as this is slightly outside of what I normally deal with, but, as there is a weight limit above which you CANNOT EVER be part 91, you can be private ops but off the top of my head it's Part 122 whatever the subtext if you're blindly adhering to 91 you're breaking the law. That 73' must be close to the MTOW limit for the regulation.
This sort of thing really pisses me off as it leads to the needless and over regulation that simply blights the professionals in the business.
Thread Starter
operating commercial aircraft without a license is a crime, not just bad luck...
If a private operator wants to bend rules, and the regulator is either
too apathetic
understaffed
obstructed
unaware
etc
to act, then that is one thing, not being caught breaking rules doesn't absolve the person from the criminality, the Mens Rea, these things do not always occur through erroneous understanding of the law, it is a calculated deliberate action, and Actus Rea, the legal requirements are spelt out, and are in principle at least equivalent to a global minimum policy as per ICAO Annex 6 and ISARPS.
Where it is a commercial venture, where innocent people are paying for the service, then this is a fraud, a deception where the victim is offered a supposed standard implicit in the licensing standards of the operator and the flag of the vessel, and is given something rather less (in africa, often far less). In Texas, (and Florida on Halloween) they would probably just shoot you.
What is not acceptable is inaction by government's who are quick draw to protect their own airspace from foreign transgressions, yet could care less about their flagged operations in other countries.
Operation of a US commercial aircraft without a license is a Federal felony:
46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an airman’s certificate
(a) General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, if that individual—
(1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity; or
(2) knowingly and willfully employs for service or uses in any capacity as an airman to operate an aircraft in air transportation an individual who does not have an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity.
.............................
Fraud is fraud, in fact it is so well known it does not need to be codified for most legal proceedings, (under UK common law at least) and as far as breaching of the registration and licensing laws, they are under USA law, Federal and State felonies or misdemeanours, under Title 18 CFR, Tile 49 CFR and applicable State codes.
Fraud in the USA, is codified, as most things are:
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
"Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.
Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.
Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.
Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.
The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.
A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.
Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.
Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.
Federal and state criminal statutes provide for the punishment of persons convicted of fraudulent activity. Interstate fraud and fraud on the federal government are singled out for federal prosecution. The most common federal fraud charges are for mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes criminalize the use of the mails or interstate wires to create or further a scheme to defraud (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1342).
Tax fraud against the federal government consists of the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes due and owing (I.R.C. §7201). Depending on the defendant's intent, tax fraud results in either civil penalties or criminal punishment. Civil penalties can reach an amount equal to 75 percent of the underpayment. Criminal punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The degree of intent necessary to maintain criminal charges for tax fraud is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Internal Revenue Service and federal prosecutors.
There are other federal fraud laws. For example, the fraudulent registration of Aliens is punishable as a misdemeanor under federal law (8 U.S.C.A. § 1306). The "victim" in such a fraud is the U.S. government. Fraud violations of banking laws are also subject to federal prosecution (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 et seq.).
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend consideration of the intended victims of fraud in the sentencing of fraud defendants. The guidelines urge an upward departure from standard sentences if the intended victims are especially vulnerable. For example, if a defendant markets an ineffective cancer cure, that scheme, if found to be fraudulent, would warrant more punishment than a scheme that targets persons generally, and coincidentally happens to injure a vulnerable person. Federal courts may require persons convicted of fraud to give notice and an explanation of the conviction to the victims of the fraud (18 U.S.C.A. § 3555).
All states maintain a general criminal statute designed to punish fraud. In Arizona, the statute is called the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute. It reads, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions" is guilty of a felony (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2310(A)).
States further criminalize fraud in a variety of settings, including trade and commerce, Securities, taxes, real estate, gambling, insurance, government benefits, and credit. In Hawaii, for example, fraud on a state tax return is a felony warranting a fine of up to $100,000 or three years of imprisonment, or both, and a fraudulent corporate tax return is punished with a fine of $500,000 (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 231-36). Other fraud felonies include fraud in the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance (§ 329-42) and fraud in government elections (§ 19-4). Fraud in the application for and receipt of public assistance benefits is punished according to the illegal gain: fraud in obtaining over $20,000 in food coupons is a class B felony; fraud in obtaining over $300 in food coupons is a class C felony; and all other public assistance fraud is a misdemeanor (§ 346-34). Alteration of a measurement device is fraud and is punished as a misdemeanor (§ 486-136).
In civil court, the remedy for fraud can vary. In most states, a plaintiff may recover "the benefit of the bargain." This is a measure of the difference between the represented value and the actual value of the transaction. In some states, a plaintiff may recover as actual damages only the value of the property lost in the fraudulent transaction. All states allow a plaintiff to seek Punitive Damages in addition to actual damages. This right is exercised most commonly in cases where the fraud is extremely dangerous or costly. Where the fraud is contractual, a plaintiff may choose to cancel, or rescind, the contract. A court order of Rescission returns all property and restores the parties to their precontract status.
Fraud is also penalized by administrative agencies and professional organizations that seek to regulate certain activities. Under state statutes, a professional may lose a license to work if the license was obtained with a false statement.
One particularly well publicized area of fraud is Corporate Fraud. Corporate fraud cases are largely governed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USCA §§ 78a et seq.), along with other rules and regulations propagated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These laws were a response to the market turmoil during the 1930s and well-publicized corporate fraud cases.
The Securities Exchange Act and the SEC regulate anything having to do with the trading or selling of securities and stocks. They govern fraudulent behavior ranging from stock manipulation to insider trading. They also provide for civil and criminal penalties for corporate fraud.
Despite the act and the SEC, in the early part of the twenty-first century, corporate fraud began to seem endemic. Such well-known companies as energy trader Enron, Telecommunications company WorldCom, cable provider Adelphia, and other lesser-known firms went into Bankruptcy as a result of corporate fraud. In light of these events, Congress decided to tighten up corporate fraud requirements with the passages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (U.S. PL 107-204)".
fraud legal definition of fraud. fraud synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
United States Code: Title 49,CHAPTER 463—PENALTIES | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46301. Civil penalties | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46306. Registration violations involving aircraft not providing air transportation | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46316. General criminal penalty when specific penalty not provided | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an airman’s certificate | LII / Legal Information Institute
too apathetic understaffed obstructed unaware etcto act, then that is one thing, not being caught breaking rules doesn't absolve the person from the criminality, the Mens Rea, these things do not always occur through erroneous understanding of the law, it is a calculated deliberate action, and Actus Rea, the legal requirements are spelt out, and are in principle at least equivalent to a global minimum policy as per ICAO Annex 6 and ISARPS.
Where it is a commercial venture, where innocent people are paying for the service, then this is a fraud, a deception where the victim is offered a supposed standard implicit in the licensing standards of the operator and the flag of the vessel, and is given something rather less (in africa, often far less). In Texas, (and Florida on Halloween) they would probably just shoot you.
What is not acceptable is inaction by government's who are quick draw to protect their own airspace from foreign transgressions, yet could care less about their flagged operations in other countries.
Operation of a US commercial aircraft without a license is a Federal felony:
46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an airman’s certificate
(a) General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, if that individual—
(1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity; or
(2) knowingly and willfully employs for service or uses in any capacity as an airman to operate an aircraft in air transportation an individual who does not have an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity.
.............................
Fraud is fraud, in fact it is so well known it does not need to be codified for most legal proceedings, (under UK common law at least) and as far as breaching of the registration and licensing laws, they are under USA law, Federal and State felonies or misdemeanours, under Title 18 CFR, Tile 49 CFR and applicable State codes.
Fraud in the USA, is codified, as most things are:
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
"Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.
Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.
Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.
Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.
The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.
A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.
Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.
Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.
Federal and state criminal statutes provide for the punishment of persons convicted of fraudulent activity. Interstate fraud and fraud on the federal government are singled out for federal prosecution. The most common federal fraud charges are for mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes criminalize the use of the mails or interstate wires to create or further a scheme to defraud (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1342).
Tax fraud against the federal government consists of the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes due and owing (I.R.C. §7201). Depending on the defendant's intent, tax fraud results in either civil penalties or criminal punishment. Civil penalties can reach an amount equal to 75 percent of the underpayment. Criminal punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The degree of intent necessary to maintain criminal charges for tax fraud is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Internal Revenue Service and federal prosecutors.
There are other federal fraud laws. For example, the fraudulent registration of Aliens is punishable as a misdemeanor under federal law (8 U.S.C.A. § 1306). The "victim" in such a fraud is the U.S. government. Fraud violations of banking laws are also subject to federal prosecution (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 et seq.).
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend consideration of the intended victims of fraud in the sentencing of fraud defendants. The guidelines urge an upward departure from standard sentences if the intended victims are especially vulnerable. For example, if a defendant markets an ineffective cancer cure, that scheme, if found to be fraudulent, would warrant more punishment than a scheme that targets persons generally, and coincidentally happens to injure a vulnerable person. Federal courts may require persons convicted of fraud to give notice and an explanation of the conviction to the victims of the fraud (18 U.S.C.A. § 3555).
All states maintain a general criminal statute designed to punish fraud. In Arizona, the statute is called the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute. It reads, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions" is guilty of a felony (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2310(A)).
States further criminalize fraud in a variety of settings, including trade and commerce, Securities, taxes, real estate, gambling, insurance, government benefits, and credit. In Hawaii, for example, fraud on a state tax return is a felony warranting a fine of up to $100,000 or three years of imprisonment, or both, and a fraudulent corporate tax return is punished with a fine of $500,000 (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 231-36). Other fraud felonies include fraud in the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance (§ 329-42) and fraud in government elections (§ 19-4). Fraud in the application for and receipt of public assistance benefits is punished according to the illegal gain: fraud in obtaining over $20,000 in food coupons is a class B felony; fraud in obtaining over $300 in food coupons is a class C felony; and all other public assistance fraud is a misdemeanor (§ 346-34). Alteration of a measurement device is fraud and is punished as a misdemeanor (§ 486-136).
In civil court, the remedy for fraud can vary. In most states, a plaintiff may recover "the benefit of the bargain." This is a measure of the difference between the represented value and the actual value of the transaction. In some states, a plaintiff may recover as actual damages only the value of the property lost in the fraudulent transaction. All states allow a plaintiff to seek Punitive Damages in addition to actual damages. This right is exercised most commonly in cases where the fraud is extremely dangerous or costly. Where the fraud is contractual, a plaintiff may choose to cancel, or rescind, the contract. A court order of Rescission returns all property and restores the parties to their precontract status.
Fraud is also penalized by administrative agencies and professional organizations that seek to regulate certain activities. Under state statutes, a professional may lose a license to work if the license was obtained with a false statement.
One particularly well publicized area of fraud is Corporate Fraud. Corporate fraud cases are largely governed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USCA §§ 78a et seq.), along with other rules and regulations propagated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These laws were a response to the market turmoil during the 1930s and well-publicized corporate fraud cases.
The Securities Exchange Act and the SEC regulate anything having to do with the trading or selling of securities and stocks. They govern fraudulent behavior ranging from stock manipulation to insider trading. They also provide for civil and criminal penalties for corporate fraud.
Despite the act and the SEC, in the early part of the twenty-first century, corporate fraud began to seem endemic. Such well-known companies as energy trader Enron, Telecommunications company WorldCom, cable provider Adelphia, and other lesser-known firms went into Bankruptcy as a result of corporate fraud. In light of these events, Congress decided to tighten up corporate fraud requirements with the passages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (U.S. PL 107-204)".
fraud legal definition of fraud. fraud synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
United States Code: Title 49,CHAPTER 463—PENALTIES | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46301. Civil penalties | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46306. Registration violations involving aircraft not providing air transportation | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46316. General criminal penalty when specific penalty not provided | LII / Legal Information Institute
United States Code: Title 49,46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an airman’s certificate | LII / Legal Information Institute
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--Quoted from fdr's second post
________________________________
46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an airman’s certificate
(a) General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, if that individual—
(1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity; or
(2) knowingly and willfully employs for service or uses in any capacity as an airman to operate an aircraft in air transportation an individual who does not have an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity.
.............................
_______________________________
So if they were operating the aircraft part 91, then they were not in violation of this statute. To be in violation they would have been "operating an aircraft in air transportation." Air Transportation generally means a flight carrying revenue passengers.
So what is the real issue here? Did you get passed over for the job of flying this airplane?
________________________________
46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an airman’s certificate
(a) General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, if that individual—
(1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity; or
(2) knowingly and willfully employs for service or uses in any capacity as an airman to operate an aircraft in air transportation an individual who does not have an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity.
.............................
_______________________________
So if they were operating the aircraft part 91, then they were not in violation of this statute. To be in violation they would have been "operating an aircraft in air transportation." Air Transportation generally means a flight carrying revenue passengers.
So what is the real issue here?
Did you get passed over for the job of flying this airplane?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kamapala
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done fdr, knew that this/these rabble will one day be exposed.
Hope they get all they deserve from the FAA, and that they consider extraditing the head honcho to Zimbabwe for his part in the equally illegal operation of the B727 in the EG coup plot.
Hope they get all they deserve from the FAA, and that they consider extraditing the head honcho to Zimbabwe for his part in the equally illegal operation of the B727 in the EG coup plot.
For edification of fdr, (IIRC a noted Colombian convective weather specialist, as well as master of the run on sentence 
... )
Zero. It is not an offense for which part of Gunantanamo Bay Naval Station was converted to a detention site.
FAA and DoJ are organs of US government, so your redundant reference leaves one wondering what it is that has you so concerned about this case? 
Not sure if this is symptom of a liar or a troll. Mods alerted.
For Mister AAL: I thought Mister fdr was referring to a 737 here.
(If you were taking the piss, the droplets soared far over me pate ... )
... )
If you fly a B737 in the USA without a license, whats the chance you end up in Gitmo?
... CAA of Equatorial Guinea, which is rather impressive that EG has more concern over the operation of FAA aircraft than the US government, FAA and DoJ!
In Texas, (and Florida on Halloween) they would probably just shoot you.
Originally Posted by AAL
... and that they consider extraditing the head honcho to Zimbabwe for his part in the equally illegal operation of the B727 in the EG coup plot.
(If you were taking the piss, the droplets soared far over me pate ... )
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 23rd Aug 2010 at 15:12.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...whats the chance you end up in Gitmo?"
Where did people get the idea that "Gitmo" is some kind of Federal penitentiary? It's a military prison. You don't get sent there for DUI, or violating an FAA reg, or dealing cocaine.
Guantanamo Bay is a terrible place, and we don't need it becoming a general synonym for "jail."
Where did people get the idea that "Gitmo" is some kind of Federal penitentiary? It's a military prison. You don't get sent there for DUI, or violating an FAA reg, or dealing cocaine.
Guantanamo Bay is a terrible place, and we don't need it becoming a general synonym for "jail."
Sorry to drift off topic, but it will hopefully be closed down/rendered redundant soon enough, leaving "Sing Sing," "San Quentin," Folsom Prison," and "Leavenworth," as standard references to big time lock up that they have always been.
With apologies to Johnny Cash, and this thread ... a possible set of lyrics for the Equatorial Guinea Blues soon to be released as a single on Capitol Records.
When I first got my wings on
My IP told me "Son,
Always follow flying regs
Don't do this just for fun"
But I hired pilots in Guinea
Just to watch them fly
Now I hear them feds a comin'
They chase me through the sky
With apologies to Johnny Cash, and this thread ... a possible set of lyrics for the Equatorial Guinea Blues soon to be released as a single on Capitol Records.
When I first got my wings on
My IP told me "Son,
Always follow flying regs
Don't do this just for fun"
But I hired pilots in Guinea
Just to watch them fly
Now I hear them feds a comin'
They chase me through the sky
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: a radar shadow
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operation of this aircraft would normally be conducted under 14 CFR 125. That said,
and it looks to me like neither of the flight crew are citizens of the US?
(c) The rules of this part, except §125.247, do not apply to the operation of airplanes specified in paragraph (a) when they are operated outside the United States by a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fdr...what again is your point???
Africa is Africa...like it or love it...they don't exactly do things over there like we do here in the States...
And that's a good thing...If they did, most A/C in Africa wouldn't be flying...
BTW...did the B-737 crash??? People like to say "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing"
I disagree...it really is "Any landing where the airline can use the aircraft again" is a good landing...
Have you ever flown in Africa???
Africa is Africa...like it or love it...they don't exactly do things over there like we do here in the States...
And that's a good thing...If they did, most A/C in Africa wouldn't be flying...
BTW...did the B-737 crash??? People like to say "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing"
I disagree...it really is "Any landing where the airline can use the aircraft again" is a good landing...
Have you ever flown in Africa???
Thread Starter
Gitmo is not used as a metaphor for...
it is a metaphor for double standards.
So it is fine for foreigners to break laws in Africa, enough of the respondents here see no problem with that, but the "US Govt" (thanks for the correction) hardly maintains that flexibility for a transgressor of their airspace. So what is that if not a double standard?
But DI3G, continuing on the theme of double standards...
your post:
Spradling Oil Company LLC...based in Borger, Tx...Google it under "N273MG"...
shows you do have concern about fraud in aviation, but only in USA? Now I'm the confused one.
Re B727's you might add a lot of other types such as HS125, LR, G-159 that have very questionable activities going on. You might even add additional B737's out of Peru...
Did the B737 crash? No. Cold comfort for the family of the deceased in the Pacific NW where their father/mother and siblings died from being given bogus components. Same for the people who died in Africa from other B/S component failures.
Not a problem? it's just africa? OK, what about the PC-12 now US registered with B/S repairs? or the now US registered BE-200 with major repairs carried out by these clowns, brought to your neighborhood by indifference to foreign laws, and US laws. And the components from the B737 and B727's operated illegally/unauthorised/unapproved maintenance, potentially contaminating the spares system of... US operators as well as foreigners.
The post is on Double Standards, how is that not relevant to professional individuals in the industry? For the Mods... the threads negative complaints are not from African nationals... those people who to paraphrase prior responses apparently are only entitled to continuation of the double standards , "any operation that the airline can use the aircraft again..." Is that a US passengers expectation as well?
The number of people who are prepared to defend malfeasance continues to reinforce my concern for the industry.
cheers
"Sing Sing," "San Quentin," Folsom Prison," and "Leavenworth,"
So it is fine for foreigners to break laws in Africa, enough of the respondents here see no problem with that, but the "US Govt" (thanks for the correction) hardly maintains that flexibility for a transgressor of their airspace. So what is that if not a double standard?
But DI3G, continuing on the theme of double standards...
your post:
Spradling Oil Company LLC...based in Borger, Tx...Google it under "N273MG"...
shows you do have concern about fraud in aviation, but only in USA? Now I'm the confused one.
Re B727's you might add a lot of other types such as HS125, LR, G-159 that have very questionable activities going on. You might even add additional B737's out of Peru...
Did the B737 crash? No. Cold comfort for the family of the deceased in the Pacific NW where their father/mother and siblings died from being given bogus components. Same for the people who died in Africa from other B/S component failures.
Not a problem? it's just africa? OK, what about the PC-12 now US registered with B/S repairs? or the now US registered BE-200 with major repairs carried out by these clowns, brought to your neighborhood by indifference to foreign laws, and US laws. And the components from the B737 and B727's operated illegally/unauthorised/unapproved maintenance, potentially contaminating the spares system of... US operators as well as foreigners.
The post is on Double Standards, how is that not relevant to professional individuals in the industry? For the Mods... the threads negative complaints are not from African nationals... those people who to paraphrase prior responses apparently are only entitled to continuation of the double standards , "any operation that the airline can use the aircraft again..." Is that a US passengers expectation as well?
The number of people who are prepared to defend malfeasance continues to reinforce my concern for the industry.
cheers
Last edited by fdr; 24th Aug 2010 at 00:43.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double standards? Cause?
fdr,
I am a european citizen who grew up in central africa. I have worked in the aviation industry for many years in Gabon, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Congo, South Africa, and others.
I started as a pilot in Africa with an FAA license, which is still current. I still fly today, big jets, nice money, JAA license, and what you might call "single standard". Yet double standards are everywhere.
I think your concerns about what the FAA is doing and how to handle the "double standards" in Africa, are misplaced and out of context. You have to understand the reality of living in these countries, both from a cultural and practical perpectives.
I do not understand the insistance you have about the FAA and Gabon, operators in Indonesia have shown over the years their standards are not just double, and other places too.
The FAA could not give a monkey if a FAA aircraft/crew was operating with or without AOC, license, etc, outside the USA. These aircraft are not operated by an american AOC holder, so what's your whole point here? I understand it is not always the "proper" way of doing business, but the National Civil Aviation Authority of where the airline is basing itslf is responsible for their operators, not the FAA.
I can see a similarity with criminals: do you think an american citizen killing or raping in Thailand would be tracked by the FBI or American Police? He's an aerican citizen, no? with an american passport, probably an american address and work, or business. It is the nation where the facts have taken place that is in charge of regulating what happens in their own country.
The result is that some will take advantage of these third world countries to set up quick/cheap businesses, and make a quick buck. The lack of enforced regulations and a small bribe will get you a long way in Africa, but it is not the only place.
Like Downin3greens said, you don't have to be there or go there, if you don't like it you can look elsewhere. The "white knights" in shining armor don't last very long in Africa anyway, an there is usually sooner than later something of a reality check around the corner. Don't get hyped up with this. You are not on a righteous mission, if you are already in Africa, well, enjoy the sunset, the camaraderie, the hot and humid evenings with a cool beer on the terrace, take in the experience for what it is, accept that not everyone is as perfect as you are.
If you have not been to Africa yet...don't go there.
Flex
I am a european citizen who grew up in central africa. I have worked in the aviation industry for many years in Gabon, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Congo, South Africa, and others.
I started as a pilot in Africa with an FAA license, which is still current. I still fly today, big jets, nice money, JAA license, and what you might call "single standard". Yet double standards are everywhere.
I think your concerns about what the FAA is doing and how to handle the "double standards" in Africa, are misplaced and out of context. You have to understand the reality of living in these countries, both from a cultural and practical perpectives.
I do not understand the insistance you have about the FAA and Gabon, operators in Indonesia have shown over the years their standards are not just double, and other places too.
The FAA could not give a monkey if a FAA aircraft/crew was operating with or without AOC, license, etc, outside the USA. These aircraft are not operated by an american AOC holder, so what's your whole point here? I understand it is not always the "proper" way of doing business, but the National Civil Aviation Authority of where the airline is basing itslf is responsible for their operators, not the FAA.
I can see a similarity with criminals: do you think an american citizen killing or raping in Thailand would be tracked by the FBI or American Police? He's an aerican citizen, no? with an american passport, probably an american address and work, or business. It is the nation where the facts have taken place that is in charge of regulating what happens in their own country.
The result is that some will take advantage of these third world countries to set up quick/cheap businesses, and make a quick buck. The lack of enforced regulations and a small bribe will get you a long way in Africa, but it is not the only place.
Like Downin3greens said, you don't have to be there or go there, if you don't like it you can look elsewhere. The "white knights" in shining armor don't last very long in Africa anyway, an there is usually sooner than later something of a reality check around the corner. Don't get hyped up with this. You are not on a righteous mission, if you are already in Africa, well, enjoy the sunset, the camaraderie, the hot and humid evenings with a cool beer on the terrace, take in the experience for what it is, accept that not everyone is as perfect as you are.
If you have not been to Africa yet...don't go there.
Flex
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex,
it would seem that fdr is not making a statement on Africa, but more on the FAA, so there's no need to be defensive on Africa.
Likewise, i've lived and flown on the continent. Yes, it is a 'different' world, but that does not exclude anyone from operations that are past questionable and is not a cogent caveat.
Yes in Africa rules are 'bent' to make things work, but then when do you draw the line? overweight when hot and high; that's rule bending but one that can result in smoking scar on the landscape. Putting passengers into an aircraft when the pilot is not suitably rated in the aircraft?
The point that fdr is making is that aircraft is/was on the FAA register, no matter where it was being operated, it was under the FAA jurisdiction and such needs to be operated in accordance with such.
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 21186
Type 737-242
Certificate Issue Date 04/01/2009
Cancel Date 04/01/2010
Reason for Cancellation Exported
Export To NICARAGUA
it would seem that fdr is not making a statement on Africa, but more on the FAA, so there's no need to be defensive on Africa.
when the FAA and US govt black ban foreign countries for failure to comply with their SOFA standards, what hypocrisy is it to effectively say F*** O** when their aircraft blantantly disregard the standards of ICAO and the sovereign states that they are being allowed to operate into.
Yes in Africa rules are 'bent' to make things work, but then when do you draw the line? overweight when hot and high; that's rule bending but one that can result in smoking scar on the landscape. Putting passengers into an aircraft when the pilot is not suitably rated in the aircraft?
The point that fdr is making is that aircraft is/was on the FAA register, no matter where it was being operated, it was under the FAA jurisdiction and such needs to be operated in accordance with such.
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 21186
Type 737-242
Certificate Issue Date 04/01/2009
Cancel Date 04/01/2010
Reason for Cancellation Exported
Export To NICARAGUA
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To correct a misapprehension,
The U.S. legislature considers its laws to apply without implicit geographical restriction. But it only prosecutes when (a) someone complains, and (b) an investigation has provided suitable grounds to believe a prosecution is worthwhile.
Similarly, the Belgian legislature considers its laws to apply without implicit geographical restriction. A similar caveat applies to a decision to prosecute.
There are people here who know far more about this than I do.
I think fdr is concerned about activities which arguably compromise commercial air safety. I think such concern is appropriate, wherever those activities occur.
PBL
Originally Posted by FLEXPWR
It is the nation where the facts have taken place that is in charge of regulating what happens in their own country.
Similarly, the Belgian legislature considers its laws to apply without implicit geographical restriction. A similar caveat applies to a decision to prosecute.
There are people here who know far more about this than I do.
I think fdr is concerned about activities which arguably compromise commercial air safety. I think such concern is appropriate, wherever those activities occur.
PBL
So it is fine for foreigners to break laws in Africa, enough of the respondents here see no problem with that, but the "US Govt" (thanks for the correction) hardly maintains that flexibility for a transgressor of their airspace.
So what is that if not a double standard?
That considered, is your complaint still valid (current?) in this case?
There is a thread on another sub forum here at PPRUNE about tales of unusual occurrences in Africa. It was for me fascinating reading, being someone who does not fly there.
I think fdr is concerned about activities which arguably compromise commercial air safety. I think such concern is appropriate, wherever those activities occur.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 24th Aug 2010 at 19:59.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLEX...I agree with you 100%...
Bruce...Where do you draw the line??? Why do you think they hire ex-pats to fly in Africa to fly with 3rd world crew??? BECAUSE it's the Capt's job (you for instance) to draw the line...
fdr...your profile says you're a 777 Capt...keep that job if you can manage it, but if you haven't lived in the Congo, Angola or Cameroon as I and many others have, flying on contract, then don't come here...you won't last...
P.S. This is not a slam on Africa, just a viewpoint of the reality of moving there to work and having to make adjustments ref: FAA standards...they don't matter there...
Also, why aren't we in the Afircan Forum???
Bruce...Where do you draw the line??? Why do you think they hire ex-pats to fly in Africa to fly with 3rd world crew??? BECAUSE it's the Capt's job (you for instance) to draw the line...
fdr...your profile says you're a 777 Capt...keep that job if you can manage it, but if you haven't lived in the Congo, Angola or Cameroon as I and many others have, flying on contract, then don't come here...you won't last...
P.S. This is not a slam on Africa, just a viewpoint of the reality of moving there to work and having to make adjustments ref: FAA standards...they don't matter there...
Also, why aren't we in the Afircan Forum???