Busted and revoked pilot license from inoperative ADS-B technology 

I guess that’s the risk you run when you get caught doing something stupid and illegal. You lose any benefit of the doubt.

The burden of proof was met when there was photographic evidence of her flying below the bridge. It's an easy and reasonable connection to make that she wouldn't want to be caught doing it so of course she turned it off.

Hazardous attitudes can and do affect everyone. It's up to the pilot to use the jelly-ware to combat it.

To many idiots flying drones in busy airspace.... is what it is..

Well if you don't have it you gotta be careful what airspace you're in. With full size aircraft that is, not models.

Or bridge steel!

It’s not as low as you think, I went and tracked my first cross country and I lost signal at 3000 feet msl 2200 agl, it’s crazy.

Yeah, exactly.

ADS-B Saved my life when a Cirrus tried to plow into my wife and me (we were also all talking to ATC so it was a big FUBAR). Head to head situation, our closure rate was over 300kts, got a 12 oclock same level warning less than 1 mile. I immediately took evasive and saw it fly right through where I would have been 5 seconds prior. I will never fly without it. This is just one of many situations where it personally reduced risk/avoided an accident. I like Martha, met her and have a number of friends/family who have flown with her, but she deserved to lose her license over this one.

FA has access to space-based data via Aireon satellites as well.

@@Milkmans_Son There are also thousands of FightTracker volunteers with ground based ADS-B receivers that voluntarily provide the data via the internet to FlightTracker and the FAA.

Thank you for that great information John!

Exactly!!!...I've used FlightAware to view my track if Garmin pilot fails to log like it sometimes does.

sure it is, just like drunk driving, until there is a crash.@user-zm7qz5fq2d

at 78 its the same I would have thought

That doesn't really work. That only is effective for ads-b data that the FAA collects and disseminates. That's a very small part of the data out there. Most of the data you see on the flight tracking websites is collected by private third party hobbyists running their own ads-b tracking station (my neighbor does this) and forwarding their data to the flight tracking websites. (my neighbor forwards his data to 4 different flight tracking websites as well as ATC audio to LiveATC.com) The private third party trackers and the flight tracking websites are under no obligation to withhold N-Numbers.

I think there’s a setup option that allows you to be anonymous on the public displays but the feds still sees your N-number.

Most likely , I can find many occurrences of my ADS-B dropping out at low altitude or hidden from a ground station repeater will drop out, ie in the hills etc.

Device doesn't have a log of when it's powered on ?

@@1STGeneral nope. Well, maybe, mine doesn’t. Not required.

@@peterbrookman869 Exactly.

Just playing devil’s advocate. That’s what the FAA is saying. Prove that it was a mechanical malfunction in the unit, otherwise we’re going to assume you were too low to have reception. I’m not saying she wasn’t low enough to lose reception, but she was kind of hosed in this instance where there were cameras that caught her flying low in that area and ADS-B couldn’t prove she wasn’t. Were they making an example of her? Quite possibly. Just don’t put yourself in that position or otherwise have a really good mechanic that can write a well worded letter in your defense.

It doesn’t have to be vintage, a new airplane doesn’t need to have an electrical system installed?

Cars will be tracked more precisely eventually. The older models are phased out and they will add some new regs for “our safety”. They already have plate readers and traffic cams, alot of newer cars have cell and satellite connections. Some cities have programs where business owners security cams are looped in with the PD who runs facial recognition software. Besides all that, most carry a cell phone everywhere. 99% of us leave a digital trail all over the place. We are going full China here pretty soon lol.

@@MoonRambo702 true. I bought a brand new Cadillac a few years ago. It has a, "black box" for my safety. Yeah right. It's for the insurance company to fault me at any accident if I claim to be not at fault. It shows even how far I had the steering wheel turned at time of impact and the like. Sick.

@@freepilot7732 everyday we trade more privacy and freedom for “safety”

@@MoonRambo702 without really any choice of our own either, we'll from some which ruin it for the rest of us. Sick. Never did I need some entity Keri me safe. I am an adult. I pay taxes to a government to uphold or borders and make roads and infrastructure. That's pretty much it. So I thought.

This lady, Martha Lunken, WAS one of their own. Before retirement she was FAA's safety inspector in that region for many years. And she was known for her strict enforcement of rules back then, too.

If she did turn it off, she got the punishment that is spelled out in the regs and she has no excuse for not knowing that. I think the main issue here is did she turn it off. Maybe the FAA could not see the data because she was so low to the ground, no line of sight to an FAA tower. Maybe the equipment was malfunctioning. Or maybe she did turn it off.

I’d rather be unsafe, than tracked like cattle..

It all depends on where the ADS-B ground receivers are located. I know that taxiing aircraft at my local airport show up clearly and reliably on flight tracking websites. The flight tracking websites (FlightRadar24, Flightaware, etc) operate mostly on ads-b data collected by private individuals operating their own base stations and forwarding the data to the tracking website. My neighbor operates such a tracking station, and also records ATC audio which he forwards to liveATC.com. I don't have any specific knowledge about the tracking stations in that area, but if there are some located close by, it's entirely possible that they could reliably track an ads-b equipped aircraft right down to treetop level.

Agreed. Deadzones, electrical interference (man made and natural), terrain and man-made objects stop the reception of electrical signals. There are even deadzones on the planet where ADS-B receivers don't pick up signals because of the curvature of the planet. Intermittent equipment failures also happen. But you can't tell a bureaucrat these things because to them, the rules can't be broken. Ever. Not even by radio signals that travel in straight lines and don't know that they're supposed to go up and over objects and terrain instead of bouncing off them and going off in a random direction.

She went back and took her PPL check ride after a couple years and got her certificate back. She was also a DPE. I just ordered a book she wrote. I want to build a AL-3 legend cub with no electrical system then the transponder/ alt encoder and adsb are not required except in class A,B and C airspace.Fly low, fly slow with both doors open.

No, she went back and did her checkride after the suspension and got her license back.

She did stay flying but had to start from student again.

I'm pretty sure that *is* how the law works. It's not a criminal trial, it's a civil proceeding under administrative law. There is no presumption of innocence. Nor does the FAA have to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Those are all elements of a Criminal trial. In a Civil proceeding, the standard is what the "preponderance of evidence" shows. A "preponderance" could be as little as 51% of the evidence. The FAA doesn't have to prove that she turned the Transponder off, they just have to show that most of the evidence points to intentionally turning it off vs a malfunction.

And to add to what Andrew said, such activities like driving and flying are not rights. They are concessions made by the government. Hence the name license. Those "freedoms" can be removed.

I get what you’re saying, but ADS-B in doesn’t work without ADS-B out.

Yes but it travels pretty far at airplane altitudes. So the tower that picked her up may not of had line of sight as she went under the bridge.

No the Garmin GDL50 will pick up all aircraft that have their transponders queried !!

Yep, you sure can - example: flightaware.com/live/flight/N77BH/history/20210418/0051Z/

@user-zm7qz5fq2d yes

It's part of the interdependency of in-flight communication with ATC to make NextGen work. Part of their objective is to automate most of ATC which allows them to reduce spacing to increase flight traffic and decrease delays. Their systems in theories will kick out emergency alerts instead of having to have their eyes everywhere. It's supposed to (in theory) increase air traffic safety by giving advisories instead of allowing the, "Try not to get hit," approach that exists in busy airspace.

@@tiki_t So why as a not for higher flight, can't I get a random ID issued every time my ADS-B is turned on? Why does it need to know my N number?

@@crissd8283 If I had to guess, probably emergency response, context and accountability. In my community if people look up a flight N number and see it tied to law enforcement, medical response, patient transport, fire, etc, no one complains. But if someone is goofing off and crash, they send out a search party, knowing what or who they are looking for and where. Or for example, if someone is circling low over their home, since the FAA doesn't currently have the capacity to detect everything (NextGen isn't completely rolled out), it empowers people to hold pilots with bad flight behavior accountable. Big brother is really only watching if there is something to see. Take a look at the flight tracking tools. There are way too many flights daily to see/care about everything.

Therein lies the court challenge.

They have video of her proving she did this. The only way to prove she didn't do it was if the video didn't exist. Also it's not a criminal case, it's a regulation violation, you are not presumed innocent unless it's a criminal case.

@@donbrowncfi Video of her turning the adsb off? That's what got her in trouble.

@@donbrowncfi They have video that it happened, not that she did it on purpose.

@@donbrowncfi That is to say, that have no proof she purposefully turned off the ADSB. And I agree about the criminal aspect, but it's the mindset that should prevail and not be circumvented by semantics of a regulation vs law violation.

You are playing with words, but I like it

"She flew under a bridge people" What is a bridge people?

Yeah, ADS-B has a lot to do with it. Revocation, particularly Emergency Revocation, is not a normal sanction for a 91.119 violation. Normally the pilot would get a certificate suspension for something like that. She got an emergency revocation, which is a much more drastic penalty than a suspension, solely because the FAA believed that she intentionally turned off her ADS-B to conceal her violation.

@@andrewalexander9492 "solely because the FAA believed that she intentionally turned off her ADS-B to conceal her violation." I wonder how that is to be determined? Flying down into that gulch will block ADS-B OUT transmissions from any ground station, making it look like it had been turned off. I suppose the equipment itself has some sort of logging capability making it easy enough to determine by looking at the equipment log.

Yes, she did deserve to lose it because she tried to hide her actions and got caught. Sorry for those who disagree, but that's the official ruling and she can't prove otherwise. She didn't make one judgement mistake (flying under a bridge), she made two and they were both deliberate and unsafe. The FAA had no choice.

@@thomasmaughan4798 Well, I don't know, but in the case at hand, Martha's story was that the ADS-B unit was loose in in it's tray and was broadcasting intermittently. The FAA didn't believe her, and it's not a court of law, the FAA doesn't have to prove guilt.

If you're flying down a river or canyon low enough that you have to climb to go over a bridge, you're very likely already violating 91.119. Not for certain, a pretty good chance of it. It's pretty easy to not notice peopl or structures and come within 500 feet of them, and while the FAA won't define "congested area", looking at NTSB appeals involving places the FAA said were "congested", there doesn't have to be much there to be considered congested, and thus you need to be at least 1000 feet AGL. A lot of pilots thing that "congested area" means the areas marked yellow on the sectionals. This isn't remotely true, the faa has found places with just a few buildings in a relatively rural area to be "congested"

Looks like a Ham radio receiver.

I was thinking the same thing. She was even below ground level flying under that bridge. In the article she says she had been making brutal crosswind landings and that the radar recordings from the FAA show the ADS-B data being intermittent. Her mechanic noted that the transponder was loose in it's mount but seems like one would need a loose connector, not just a mount, for it to be intermittent. Would be interesting to see the radar data. Was it only intermittent at low altitude? How intermittent was it?

ADS-B works fine on the ground. It's range is line-of-sight so between two aircraft on the ground probably only a few miles; but if only one is in the air it's good for a similar distance as VOR. If no other aircraft is in the area then it doesn't matter; ADS-B is intended for aircraft to aircraft situational awareness.

@@thomasmaughan4798 in this context the question is if the FAA towers can pickup and record the ADS-B data from an airplane on the ground or at very low altitude. If she was not line of sight to an FAA tower it seems plausible that is why they see gaps in the data.

@@bertruttan129 Nobody is forgetting that! I believe the post says she got busted for turning the adsb off or it appearing as if she turned it off.

ADS-B requires your IACO code. You can hide your N-number, but not from the FAA.

@@billlattimer3841 Thanks Bill, that makes sense!

Also as I understand the anonymous mode requires a VFR 1200 squawk code?

If the bridge crosses a valley, it is perfectly plausible that she was not within line-of-sight of an ADS-B receiver and thus, her track was not being recorded whilst she flew along the valley and lined up for her run under the bridge. No nefarious fiddling with her equipment necessary. Just physics. I’ve looked at some of my past flight tracks on a similar app and have seen my track “drop out” when flying in valleys.

@@halfrhovsquared Yep same here. I've seen missed portions of my flight when I tried to view after landing.

@user-zm7qz5fq2d For a system to be reliable, deliberate and deceptive use actions can't be tolerated.

Let me 'help': The pilot did not lose her license because of the bridge flying. (you get a suspension for that) The pilot lost her license because the ADS-B was inoperative. Now if you know that she turned it off - then yes, it's because of breaking a rule. If, however, the ADS-B malfunctioned, as she claims - then ADS-B caused the pilot to lose here license. Subtle but important difference!

@@HomebuiltHELP Is it true that if you lose your license, you can go back through the training and get another one? I did not realize that!

@@mhilderbrand7693 FAA will make that decision. Sometimes a waiting period too.

Hey guys, quick question.. so is it there for illegal to begin a flight with the equipment turned off , kept off , while remaining in airspace not requiring ADSB? Once equipped it has to be on during any flights? I've been reading Martha's work in Flying mag for years! Thanks for the update and info!

@@johnreed8872 To the Best of my knowledge (please speak up if you know otherwise) once equipped with ADS-B, that equipment is not to have its functionality disabled. Quite different than rules regarding a transponder in pre- ADS-B days? Comments from those that can confirm or deny?

It is still not the FAA's business to track everywhere I've ever flow and record that forever. I also dont like Visa keeping track of everywhere I have spent my money and recording it forever.

You are on the right track - but no it is a Gonset GSB100 transmitter in need of repair. I am a ham operator from way back....

Incorrect, 91.225(f) "Equipped aircraft must have it on and in transmit mode at all times" even on the ground. There are exceptions but nothing you listed would qualify.

@Free Pilot I agree with you. I think it was Burt Rutan that said several years ago that the technology was out there to have a heads up display so that you could "see" in zero/zero conditions. That would improve safety would it not? I haven't heard that that technology is in airplanes now but then I haven't flown in over fourteen years

@@krisknowlton5935 they do have that technology.

Exactly, if they got the underbridge flying data, nothing would had happened.

I agree that it may have been excessive. However, as she was someone who was very experienced, flight instructor, and had even worked for the FAA, she knew better than to do that. She said she flew under bridge out of sponteney and for no other reason.

Have you driven down the highway lately? Loaded with cameras and specifically license plate recording cameras.

@@jm32145 What's your point, that there are 4th amendment violations everywhere? Or are you comparing the tax-purchased roadways to the sky? One is taxpayer funded, the other is God given. The use of the roadways may be a privilege, are the skies? At this point they have been treated as such, but should they? It is clear what the purpose of ADSB is; to enable safe passenger-carrying drone operations without the need of a license. How is that objective furthered by would happened with this woman? Look at the restrictions for ADSB; above 10000'. . . in Class C and B. This is a hedge for the future, supporting corporate interests. I have no quarrel for companies making money, and there being a semblance of progress, but this looks a little like fascism to me, when the rules, not public safety, become more important than freedom. It's someone enjoying their authority. And prior to ADSB, one could at least rationalize that radar had to somehow be paid for, but ADSB will make radar obsolete for civil flight, and come at the expense of the pilot. That rationale is gone, but it is safer. I'm just saying, we have had people in the air for a century now, and in the last minute of that time, suddenly see and be seen in BFE airspace isn't enough. Our planes bristle with lights, and now have ADSB and can have receivers to see everyone around us. If seen and be seen has been safe enough for a century, is it suddenly not safe enough simply because you have a device in your plane. Remember, the way around this is to not equip your plane with ADSB. It's greed for authority that took that woman's license, not public safety. And that is the intent of the 4th (and the 2nd) to protect us from the government's greed for authority.

@@samsorrell1832 You could argue the roads are god given, since he created man that created the roads and then the taxes to support their maintenance. Same with the regulations that govern airspace. God aside, we all know (or should) know the rules that allow us to keep our license, just like a drivers license, if we disagree with those rules we have a choice to not exercise the privilege or to disregard the rules and accept the consequences.

Are we really going to pretend that houses are God-given too? You give the impression that everyone should just be happy that the government allows us to do what we are currently "getting away with". The point of our freedoms is that we aren't "getting away with" anything. The point of our freedoms is that the government is who "get's away with" shit, so long as we don't say "enough" to them. I can't solve that woman's problem, but I think if anything, this is a place where AOPA needs to step up and start lobbying. These is a place where we, as a community, need to come together and fund our own legal counsel to tell the government to back off. I want drone taxis to fly. I want business to prosper. I don't want it to come at the expense of me using that technology to be safer, just because a bureaucrat can then decide that they have a right know my private business because I wanted to, when needed, be safer. There is a level of safety which has been acceptable, and ADSB provides a greater level. To suggest that I should forego more safety, and indeed, give up access to certain parts of the sky because I also value my privacy is a bridge too far for me. And that is what is on the table now; the FAA has taken away altitudes above 10,000', and flight into class C and B airspace from anyone who values their privacy. On the other hand, I've read there was a way to remain anonymous and use ADSB. I don't know how accurate it is, and if it's a greater expense, so long as it's not a burdensome expense relative to the burden of having ADSB at all, then I don't like it, but I could live with it. However, how long would that be acceptable to bureaucrats who'd take your license because you couldn't prove the problem was that your ADSB signal can't penetrate granite? Too many things wrong here, starting with guilt until proven innocent for a "no harm" (in this example, anyway) crime. The FAA fished for a victim, and found one, so they made an example of them to slap us docile creatures back into their place. This was a hostile action on the FAA's part, done just to prove they can do it.

@@samsorrell1832 You’re reading into my comments far to deeply. If you look into the FAA’s NextGen plans for airspace management ADS-B and the regulations around it start to make a lot more sense. Personally, ADS-B has possibly saved me at least twice from another pilot that was either NORDO or simply ignoring other traffic in the pattern and plowed right in oblivious to the other aircraft around them.