L-39 buzzing Santa Monica Pier....
Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:36 pm
I never heard of this one until today. The article raises issues about selling rides in jets too.
Mark H
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 5252.story
Buzzing of Santa Monica Pier leads to questions about aviation safety
The pilot who flew his Soviet-made jet close to the pier has lost his license, but the use of military jets by civilian pilots is a broader issue.
By Dan Weikel LA TIMES
November 7, 2009 | 6:39 p.m.
Racing at speeds of up to 350 mph, the Soviet-made military jet made several low-altitude passes at the Santa Monica Pier, seemingly keying on the popular Ferris wheel as frightened onlookers scattered, some screaming.
Emergency calls poured in to police as the aircraft flew about 50 feet off the ground, then spiraled skyward in a series of tight rolls, smoke trailing from its tail as if it were an aerobatic plane. The lifeguard in Tower 26 said the jet passed so close that she felt a wall of heat.
For a few minutes on that November day a year ago, it seemed the pier was under attack.
Instead, officials learned, the startling aerial display was a stunt arranged by a local pilot, convicted felon and production company executive to promote an unfinished movie about a maverick squadron of Americans and Russians on a secret mission to Iran.
The pilot, David G. Riggs, lost his license and faces a misdemeanor criminal case in Santa Monica. A court hearing to set his trial date has been scheduled for Monday. Riggs declined to comment. His attorney said he did nothing wrong.
But Riggs' escapade has focused attention on a little-known aspect of aviation: the use of high-performance military jets by civilian pilots and the hazards they can pose to people in the air and on the ground.
The incident has prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to take a harder look at hundreds of experimental exhibition aircraft in its Western Pacific region: California, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii. There are about 5,600 planes with that designation in the United States, including aircraft like Riggs' 1973 Aero Vodochody L-39 Albatros, one of the most popular Soviet bloc trainers during the Cold War.
Because they are not built on FAA-certified assembly lines, such experimental exhibition planes are restricted by the government to air shows, flight demonstrations or training flights over sparsely populated areas. The planes cannot carry passengers for hire unless the FAA approves.
Another type of Soviet trainer, an Aero Vodochody L-29 Delfin, crashed while flying in Tehachapi's Independence Day celebration this year, killing two pilots and narrowly missing a neighborhood.
According to the FAA, Riggs, 47, obtained his private pilot's license in 1984. Besides the FAA enforcement action and Santa Monica case, court documents show that he served time in Hong Kong for passport fraud. In Missouri, he was convicted several times on theft and fraud charges, including a federal prosecution that resulted in a three-year prison term for wire fraud, bank fraud and passport fraud.
Riggs also has been the target of civil lawsuits, including a pending fraud and breach of contract case filed against him in Los Angeles by 31 people who say they invested about $2.8 million in his production company, Afterburner Films.
According to FAA and National Transportation Safety Board records, Riggs and a second pilot, Skip Holm, left Van Nuys Airport on Nov. 6, each flying an L-39. Holm was in a Canadian-registered plane that Riggs had leased, FAA officials say.
The plan was to do four passes of the Santa Monica coast at a safe altitude as a third small plane flew nearby, towing a promotional banner for the movie "Kerosene Cowboys."
FAA and NTSB documents show that Riggs flew away from the other two planes and made low passes at the pier and along the beach before Holm told him over the radio to "knock it off." Riggs concluded the flight by pulling into a steep climb just before he would have hit the pier, videotapes show.
After Riggs lost his pilot's license, Terry White, a prosecutor in the Santa Monica city attorney's office, filed a criminal complaint in May, invoking a rarely used section of the state public utilities code that prohibits the unsafe operation of an airplane. "Videos show he came very close to the pier," White said. "This was a very serious and dangerous act."
If convicted, Riggs could be fined $1,000 and get up to a year in jail.
Should the case go to trial, his attorney, John Duran, said he would assert that Holm is to blame. "The stunt involved two airplanes," Duran said. "My client was in the secondary plane. He was just following the pattern of Mr. Holm. They are going to have a hard time proving this case."
Holm is a Vietnam War veteran who won three Distinguished Flying Crosses and flew more than 350 combat missions as a U.S. Air Force pilot. He left the service as a lieutenant colonel in 1992 and has worked in civilian aviation since.
He described Duran's strategy as an "insane defense." Riggs, he said, "was out to sell a movie. He wanted to get publicity."
In January, the FAA revoked Riggs' pilot's license. He appealed to the NTSB, which concurred with the FAA in March and ordered the revocation of Riggs' license, noting his "flagrant disregard for the rules."
Two former FAA inspectors, who investigated Riggs' case before leaving the agency in recent months, contend that the agency should have gone further. They say Riggs and his aviation company, Mach 1 Aviation, may have violated the law by selling rides in the two L-39s at Van Nuys and other fields.
Kevin Sullivan, then an FAA inspector based in Los Angeles, turned up videotapes of trips and balance sheets from Riggs' company showing that he has sold almost 400 flights to the public for thousands of dollars apiece.
Brochures from Incredible Adventures, a travel company and booking agency in Sarasota, Fla., advertise that a 45-minute ride in one of Riggs' L-39s sells for about $3,000; the fee includes a movie of the flight.
Riggs is listed as one of the pilots, although he has lost his private pilot's certificate and FAA records obtained by The Times show that he has not held an FAA waiver to carry paying passengers or a commercial pilot's license.
According to FAA documents, Sullivan and George Erdel, another FAA inspector, also were concerned that the L-39 Riggs owns was in disrepair -- a potential danger to the public -- and being used improperly as a camera platform for film shoots.
FAA reports show that Erdel and at least two other FAA inspectors discovered that repair records for the plane were incomplete or missing, including documentation that would have shown whether critical time-sensitive parts, such as fuel tanks and turbine blades, were replaced on schedule.
But Erdel and Sullivan say their investigations were cut short by FAA officials, prompting both to lodge complaints with the agency's inspector general and the federal Office of Special Counsel.
Sullivan, an aviation consultant and veteran pilot who lives in Orange, left the FAA in March when he failed to pass probation for new employees. Erdel, who lives in Tennessee, retired in June after 26 years with the agency.
"Someone has turned a blind eye to this although we had dead-bang cases," Sullivan said
Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman in Los Angeles, said the agency cannot comment on the investigators' complaints. But he defended the handling of the Riggs case.
"The facts speak for themselves," Gregor said. "We revoked Mr. Riggs' pilot's license. We also required Mr. Riggs to perform work on his aircraft to make it airworthy and we documented that the work was, in fact, done."
FAA officials also say they are still keeping an eye on Riggs. In August, they sent him a warning letter stating that the agency would not honor a Canadian pilot's license he obtained in June, several months after his U.S. license was revoked.
But there might be one thing the agency cannot prevent. A year after his revocation, Riggs can reapply for another airman's certificate. If he passes the flight test, he could get his pilot's license back.
Mark H
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 5252.story
Buzzing of Santa Monica Pier leads to questions about aviation safety
The pilot who flew his Soviet-made jet close to the pier has lost his license, but the use of military jets by civilian pilots is a broader issue.
By Dan Weikel LA TIMES
November 7, 2009 | 6:39 p.m.
Racing at speeds of up to 350 mph, the Soviet-made military jet made several low-altitude passes at the Santa Monica Pier, seemingly keying on the popular Ferris wheel as frightened onlookers scattered, some screaming.
Emergency calls poured in to police as the aircraft flew about 50 feet off the ground, then spiraled skyward in a series of tight rolls, smoke trailing from its tail as if it were an aerobatic plane. The lifeguard in Tower 26 said the jet passed so close that she felt a wall of heat.
For a few minutes on that November day a year ago, it seemed the pier was under attack.
Instead, officials learned, the startling aerial display was a stunt arranged by a local pilot, convicted felon and production company executive to promote an unfinished movie about a maverick squadron of Americans and Russians on a secret mission to Iran.
The pilot, David G. Riggs, lost his license and faces a misdemeanor criminal case in Santa Monica. A court hearing to set his trial date has been scheduled for Monday. Riggs declined to comment. His attorney said he did nothing wrong.
But Riggs' escapade has focused attention on a little-known aspect of aviation: the use of high-performance military jets by civilian pilots and the hazards they can pose to people in the air and on the ground.
The incident has prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to take a harder look at hundreds of experimental exhibition aircraft in its Western Pacific region: California, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii. There are about 5,600 planes with that designation in the United States, including aircraft like Riggs' 1973 Aero Vodochody L-39 Albatros, one of the most popular Soviet bloc trainers during the Cold War.
Because they are not built on FAA-certified assembly lines, such experimental exhibition planes are restricted by the government to air shows, flight demonstrations or training flights over sparsely populated areas. The planes cannot carry passengers for hire unless the FAA approves.
Another type of Soviet trainer, an Aero Vodochody L-29 Delfin, crashed while flying in Tehachapi's Independence Day celebration this year, killing two pilots and narrowly missing a neighborhood.
According to the FAA, Riggs, 47, obtained his private pilot's license in 1984. Besides the FAA enforcement action and Santa Monica case, court documents show that he served time in Hong Kong for passport fraud. In Missouri, he was convicted several times on theft and fraud charges, including a federal prosecution that resulted in a three-year prison term for wire fraud, bank fraud and passport fraud.
Riggs also has been the target of civil lawsuits, including a pending fraud and breach of contract case filed against him in Los Angeles by 31 people who say they invested about $2.8 million in his production company, Afterburner Films.
According to FAA and National Transportation Safety Board records, Riggs and a second pilot, Skip Holm, left Van Nuys Airport on Nov. 6, each flying an L-39. Holm was in a Canadian-registered plane that Riggs had leased, FAA officials say.
The plan was to do four passes of the Santa Monica coast at a safe altitude as a third small plane flew nearby, towing a promotional banner for the movie "Kerosene Cowboys."
FAA and NTSB documents show that Riggs flew away from the other two planes and made low passes at the pier and along the beach before Holm told him over the radio to "knock it off." Riggs concluded the flight by pulling into a steep climb just before he would have hit the pier, videotapes show.
After Riggs lost his pilot's license, Terry White, a prosecutor in the Santa Monica city attorney's office, filed a criminal complaint in May, invoking a rarely used section of the state public utilities code that prohibits the unsafe operation of an airplane. "Videos show he came very close to the pier," White said. "This was a very serious and dangerous act."
If convicted, Riggs could be fined $1,000 and get up to a year in jail.
Should the case go to trial, his attorney, John Duran, said he would assert that Holm is to blame. "The stunt involved two airplanes," Duran said. "My client was in the secondary plane. He was just following the pattern of Mr. Holm. They are going to have a hard time proving this case."
Holm is a Vietnam War veteran who won three Distinguished Flying Crosses and flew more than 350 combat missions as a U.S. Air Force pilot. He left the service as a lieutenant colonel in 1992 and has worked in civilian aviation since.
He described Duran's strategy as an "insane defense." Riggs, he said, "was out to sell a movie. He wanted to get publicity."
In January, the FAA revoked Riggs' pilot's license. He appealed to the NTSB, which concurred with the FAA in March and ordered the revocation of Riggs' license, noting his "flagrant disregard for the rules."
Two former FAA inspectors, who investigated Riggs' case before leaving the agency in recent months, contend that the agency should have gone further. They say Riggs and his aviation company, Mach 1 Aviation, may have violated the law by selling rides in the two L-39s at Van Nuys and other fields.
Kevin Sullivan, then an FAA inspector based in Los Angeles, turned up videotapes of trips and balance sheets from Riggs' company showing that he has sold almost 400 flights to the public for thousands of dollars apiece.
Brochures from Incredible Adventures, a travel company and booking agency in Sarasota, Fla., advertise that a 45-minute ride in one of Riggs' L-39s sells for about $3,000; the fee includes a movie of the flight.
Riggs is listed as one of the pilots, although he has lost his private pilot's certificate and FAA records obtained by The Times show that he has not held an FAA waiver to carry paying passengers or a commercial pilot's license.
According to FAA documents, Sullivan and George Erdel, another FAA inspector, also were concerned that the L-39 Riggs owns was in disrepair -- a potential danger to the public -- and being used improperly as a camera platform for film shoots.
FAA reports show that Erdel and at least two other FAA inspectors discovered that repair records for the plane were incomplete or missing, including documentation that would have shown whether critical time-sensitive parts, such as fuel tanks and turbine blades, were replaced on schedule.
But Erdel and Sullivan say their investigations were cut short by FAA officials, prompting both to lodge complaints with the agency's inspector general and the federal Office of Special Counsel.
Sullivan, an aviation consultant and veteran pilot who lives in Orange, left the FAA in March when he failed to pass probation for new employees. Erdel, who lives in Tennessee, retired in June after 26 years with the agency.
"Someone has turned a blind eye to this although we had dead-bang cases," Sullivan said
Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman in Los Angeles, said the agency cannot comment on the investigators' complaints. But he defended the handling of the Riggs case.
"The facts speak for themselves," Gregor said. "We revoked Mr. Riggs' pilot's license. We also required Mr. Riggs to perform work on his aircraft to make it airworthy and we documented that the work was, in fact, done."
FAA officials also say they are still keeping an eye on Riggs. In August, they sent him a warning letter stating that the agency would not honor a Canadian pilot's license he obtained in June, several months after his U.S. license was revoked.
But there might be one thing the agency cannot prevent. A year after his revocation, Riggs can reapply for another airman's certificate. If he passes the flight test, he could get his pilot's license back.
A.. H...
Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:42 pm
Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:03 pm
A brilliant piece of reporting as you would expect from the LA Pravda.
???
Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:08 pm
A cousin of mine named Earl Carlisle had a flying school at Santa Monica Airport in the early 1920s after a stint has Ruldoplh Valentino's chauffeur.
In 1924 he landed on the street next to the pier after buzzing it repeatedly and hit a light pole and was given a ticket by the police for reckless flying and paid a $5 fine.
He was supposidly the first pilot in the US cited and fined for reckless flying.
In 1924 he landed on the street next to the pier after buzzing it repeatedly and hit a light pole and was given a ticket by the police for reckless flying and paid a $5 fine.
He was supposidly the first pilot in the US cited and fined for reckless flying.
Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 pm
Ugh. This type of behavior is a direct threat to all warbird owners and operators. I am tired of the actions of one or two numb-skulls in our midst putting everything the rest of us work for in jeopardy. It is downright offensive to me.
Pilots need to remember that all it takes is one decisive stroke of an administrator's pen, and we can kiss our priviledges to fly warbirds (or maybe certain types of them) goodbye.
Watch the LA Times video -- This case is so flagrant I can't believe it. I think the phone calls to '911' say it all.
How many times will this be said before it sinks in? You simply MUST NOT buzz a public assembly of people, unannounced and repeatedly -- especially in a warbird. If you do it, you deserve the jail time you will get, and you deserve the derision and censure you will receive from the aviation community. The aviation industry is shaky enough right now without excessive idiocy like this.
I think I need a stiff drink now...
Pilots need to remember that all it takes is one decisive stroke of an administrator's pen, and we can kiss our priviledges to fly warbirds (or maybe certain types of them) goodbye.
Watch the LA Times video -- This case is so flagrant I can't believe it. I think the phone calls to '911' say it all.
How many times will this be said before it sinks in? You simply MUST NOT buzz a public assembly of people, unannounced and repeatedly -- especially in a warbird. If you do it, you deserve the jail time you will get, and you deserve the derision and censure you will receive from the aviation community. The aviation industry is shaky enough right now without excessive idiocy like this.
I think I need a stiff drink now...
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:00 am
Really? Are people really that f***ing stupid that they would do something like this with their aircraft? Un-f***ing-believable. Throw the guy in jail, for the benefit of those members of the warbird community WITH common sense!
I'm not saying that it was so much dangerous as it was absolutely and undeniably a really, really stupid thing to do.
I'm not saying that it was so much dangerous as it was absolutely and undeniably a really, really stupid thing to do.
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:00 am
You mean unless you are flying Air Force One.HogDriver44 wrote:How many times will this be said before it sinks in? You simply MUST NOT buzz a public assembly of people, unannounced and repeatedly --
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:14 am
Jeeze, he must have been REALLY stupid if Skip told him to *knock it off*... 
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:14 am
That so-called "pilot" should be permanently grounded. Those passes were extremely low, much lower and closer to people than even the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds do. Buck is right - that Riggs guy is going to cause some serious damage to the jet warbird scene.
Maybe in the 1940's you could get away with that, but now, in the post 9-11 era, you would be darn lucky to not go to jail for what he did. I'm surprised that the National Guard didn't scramble some F-15's or F-16's to intercept that guy. I'm guessing he was probably talking to SOCAL approach during the event, so that's likely the only thing that prevented that from happening.
Also, I'm surprised that Skip Holm was involved indirectly, even in a passive way. I'm sure that Skip had no idea of that guy's intentions or his felony background.
With the high visibility that Congress is giving the FAA now a days, it wouldn't surprise me if this whole incident is used as fodder for some Congress person to introduce legislation to severely limit or perhap prohibit civilians from operating ex-military jets. Remember the Sacramento ice cream parlor incident with the F-86? That happened in 1972 and jet operators are still paying the price for the serious lack of judgement that the pilot made that day.
Thanks David Riggs for ruining it for everyone else!
Maybe in the 1940's you could get away with that, but now, in the post 9-11 era, you would be darn lucky to not go to jail for what he did. I'm surprised that the National Guard didn't scramble some F-15's or F-16's to intercept that guy. I'm guessing he was probably talking to SOCAL approach during the event, so that's likely the only thing that prevented that from happening.
Also, I'm surprised that Skip Holm was involved indirectly, even in a passive way. I'm sure that Skip had no idea of that guy's intentions or his felony background.
With the high visibility that Congress is giving the FAA now a days, it wouldn't surprise me if this whole incident is used as fodder for some Congress person to introduce legislation to severely limit or perhap prohibit civilians from operating ex-military jets. Remember the Sacramento ice cream parlor incident with the F-86? That happened in 1972 and jet operators are still paying the price for the serious lack of judgement that the pilot made that day.
Thanks David Riggs for ruining it for everyone else!
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:17 am
Actually he was at the Santa Monica pier, and that means he could have been buzzing the ocean-this is not a violation of the FAR's. However, the catch here is that the aircraft is "Experimental Exhibition". The FAA can target this category simply by claiming that the aircraft was outside it's operating area.
If the plane indeed was traveling at 350 mph, I think they could've got the pilot on that, but how can they prove that he was flying at that speed if he was "on the deck" below radar?
The speed at which the FAA tries to criminalize pilots is interesting. (I've tried to bring this up before). Yesterday in nov. 6th !!! That means they pulled this guys license hours ago. This is actually illegal, because the FAA is supposed to do an investigation. How can they do an accurate "investigation" in one day?
I agree with Brandon's labeling the LA times as LA Pravda, and I am somewhat surprised that other Wixers are quick to take a stand against the L-39 pilot, and so quick to pander to possible gov abuse. I would be more suspisious of the FAA, and their ability to pull somebody's license in one day with a possibly incomplete investigation. Let's remember it's "We the People" who created the FAA, and we do have the power to put pressure on them to tone down the heavy handed crack downs.
If the plane indeed was traveling at 350 mph, I think they could've got the pilot on that, but how can they prove that he was flying at that speed if he was "on the deck" below radar?
The speed at which the FAA tries to criminalize pilots is interesting. (I've tried to bring this up before). Yesterday in nov. 6th !!! That means they pulled this guys license hours ago. This is actually illegal, because the FAA is supposed to do an investigation. How can they do an accurate "investigation" in one day?
I agree with Brandon's labeling the LA times as LA Pravda, and I am somewhat surprised that other Wixers are quick to take a stand against the L-39 pilot, and so quick to pander to possible gov abuse. I would be more suspisious of the FAA, and their ability to pull somebody's license in one day with a possibly incomplete investigation. Let's remember it's "We the People" who created the FAA, and we do have the power to put pressure on them to tone down the heavy handed crack downs.
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:21 am
A2C wrote:The speed at which the FAA tries to criminalize pilots is interesting. (I've tried to bring this up before). Yesterday in nov. 6th !!! That means they pulled this guys license hours ago. This is actually illegal, because the FAA is supposed to do an investigation. How can they do an accurate "investigation" in a few hours?
It happened a year ago...
For a few minutes on that November day a year ago, it seemed the pier was under attack.
There's some rule about 1500ft? minimum of the beach or people on boats/in the water. Part 91 something or other..
91.303?
Also possible violation of 91.509
& definite violation of 91.515 (a) (1)
Last edited by ZRX61 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:32 am, edited 3 times in total.
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:22 am
A2C wrote:Actually he was at the Santa Monica pier, and that means he could have been buzzing the ocean-this is not a violation of the FAR's. However, the catch here is that the aircraft is "Experimental Exhibition". The FAA can target this category simply by claiming that the aircraft was outside it's operating area.
If the plane indeed was traveling at 350 mph, I think they could've got the pilot on that, but how can they prove that he was flying at that speed if he was "on the deck" below radar?
The speed at which the FAA tries to criminalize pilots is interesting. (I've tried to bring this up before). Yesterday in nov. 6th !!! That means they pulled this guys license hours ago. This is actually illegal, because the FAA is supposed to do an investigation. How can they do an accurate "investigation" in a few hours?
I agree with Brandon's labeling the LA times as LA Pravda, and I am somewhat surprised that other Wixers are quick to take a stand against the L-39 pilot, and so quick to pander to possible gov abuse. I would be more suspisious of the FAA, and their ability to pull somebody's license in one day with a possibly incomplete investigation. Let's remember it's "We the People" who created the FAA, and we do have the power to put pressure on them to tone down the heavy handed crack downs.
There are so many things wrong with this post, that I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer.
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:27 am
A2C wrote:
The speed at which the FAA tries to criminalize pilots is interesting. (I've tried to bring this up before). Yesterday in nov. 6th !!! That means they pulled this guys license hours ago. This is actually illegal, because the FAA is supposed to do an investigation. How can they do an accurate "investigation" in a few hours?
It happened a year ago...
The photo is Dated No. 7 2009. Oh yeah, right I forgot it's 2010.
Quote:
For a few minutes on that November day a year ago, it seemed the pier was under attack.
There's some rule about 500ft (1000ft?) minimum of the beach or people on boats/in the water.
You can be low over the water if you aren't flying over a structure or person. How do you know it wasn't off the pier over the water?
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:31 am
A2C wrote:You can be low over the water if you aren't flying over a structure or person. How do you know it wasn't off the pier over the water?
Maybe because I watched the video...?
Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:32 am
A2C wrote:
You can be low over the water if you aren't flying over a structure or person. How do you know it wasn't off the pier over the water?
Maybe because I watched the video...?
In the year 2010?
