NTSB: Judge Geraghty Also "Distressed" Over Riggs Suit Against Witnesses
The ongoing battle between those attempting to keep aviation safe and scoundrel-free, and a persistent aero-con-man, got a new start this morning as aviation bad-boy, David Glen Riggs, stood before NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty. This is Riggs' most recent attempt to stave off the FAA's fight to revoke his certificates for this part in an unlawful commercial operation in which an associated airplane, flown by another pilot crashed, killing the pilot, Doug Gilliss, and his passenger Rick Winslow.
Early indications are that Riggs is in for a rough ride.
FAA Counsel, Naomi Tsuda, started in early as Tsuda told Judge Geraghty in the public hearing that she believes the lawsuit/documents Riggs filed (against three witnesses who provided testimony at the request of the FAA) was a clear attempt to intimidate the witnesses.
NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty appears aware of those concerns and our sources report that he indicated that he was "distressed" by the documents Riggs' attorney sent to three witnesses. Geraghty appeared to believe that Riggs/Mach One's claims may be an attempt to intimidate witnesses, and noted that the document(s) was "threatening in its tone" and added that he has never seen something like this in all his years with the NTSB.
The Emergency revocation order was issued by the FAA last month and Riggs lost the first defensive round a few days ago when NTSB's Chief Administrative law judge refused to overturn the 'Emergency' aspect of the FAA's claims.
The November 13th 'Emergency Order Of Revocation' Letter stated that, "Under 49 U .S.C. Section 461 05( c), the Acting Administrator has determined that an emergency exists related to safety in air commerce. This determination is based on your lack of qualification to hold your Commercial pilot certificate, or a FAA issued pilot certificate of any kind, because of the nature and seriousness of the violations set forth in this Order.
On or about May 18, 2012, you operated N139CK, an experimental certificated aircraft, in the vicinity of Boulder City Airport, Boulder City, Nevada. You operated N139CK on three separate passenger-carrying flights for compensation or hire, when you knew you were not allowed to conduct such flights. These three flights were conducted as formation flights with another experimental certificated aircraft, thus further increasing the overall risk of these flights. Less than two weeks before, you specifically told FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors that you were not carrying passengers for compensation or hire.
Additionally, you had at least one more passenger-carrying formation flight scheduled for compensation or hire immediately upon the conclusion of your third flight. You deliberately operated your experimental certificated aircraft in this reckless manner when you knew such flights were prohibited by both the Federal Aviation Regulations and N139CK's operation limitations. Your operation of N139CK as alleged demonstrates a reckless disregard for the safety and property of others that is inconsistent with the requisite care, judgment, and responsibility required of a holder of a pilot certificate of any kind.
Furthermore, you have a history of committing other violations that indicate you put your own economic gain over aviation safety and compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. On January 12, 2008, your Private Pilot Certificate was revoked for deliberately violating numerous Federal Aviation Regulations involving the operation of N139CK, the same aircraft involve in these violations. The regulatory violations leading to the revocation of your pilot certificate were also related to you promoting your personal economic interests over aviation safety. In this case, you were willing to sacrifice the safety of others for your own personal financial gain by charging for flights in N139CK. Your enforcement history of deliberately compromising aviation safety demonstrates that you lack the qualifications to hold any FAA issued pilot certificate. Your repetitive, violative conduct reflects an airman who is unwilling (or unable) to comply with basic regulatory requirements governing airmen.
Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Acting Administrator is of the opinion that an emergency requiring immediate action exists with respect to safety in air commerce, and he has determined that safety in air commerce and the public interest require the immediate revocation of your Commercial Pilot Certificate, and any other FAA issued pilot certificates you hold, on an emergency basis, and during the pendency of any appeal before the National Transportation Safety Board. Emergency action in this case is a safety measure that provides immediate protection to the public.
Moreover, it is long standing FAA policy to declare an emergency under 49 U.S.C. Section 46105(c) when, in circumstances such as those alleged in this Order, the Acting Administrator determines that the certificate holder lacks the qualifications to hold a FAA issued pilot certificate.
In conclusion, the Acting Administrator has determined that under the criteria of FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, pages 1-3, your conduct as alleged in this order demonstrates that you presently lack the degree of care, judgment, and responsibility required of the holder of any FAA issued pilot certificate. The Acting Administrator, therefore, finds in accordance with 49 U.S.C. section 46105(c) and the guidance found in FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 6, pages 7-10, that the exercise of the privileges of your FAA issued pilot certificates while any proceedings related to the issuance of this Order are pending is contrary to the interest of safety in air commerce."
ANN has a number of associates monitoring today's hearing before Judge Geraghty and will update the story accordingly.
SpaceX to Launch Inversion RAY Reentry Vehicle in Fall
See All