The college I went to had a habit of kicking people out for all kinds of things. Getting bad grades was a pretty easy way to get booted, but breaking other rules could cause a person a lot of trouble as well. I decided that if I ever started doing so poorly in class that I was in trouble, I'd start partying like crazy in the dorms and at least kicked out for having some fun.

Apparently a pilot by the name of David Riggs was influenced by an similarly flawed line of thinking about a year ago. According to a Los Angeles Times article, Riggs lost his license after repeatedly buzzing Santa Monica Pier at dangerously low altitudes in an L-39.

While that flight must have been a lot of fun, flying like that was definitely a bad decision!

After the recent antics of the pilots of NWA Flight 118, the last thing we need right now is more hype about irresponsible pilots. Riggs made the flight as an advertising ploy for a movie he was involved in. However, he did his maneuvers without letting anyone know and flew so low that he obviously had no regard for safety. He must have known he would get in trouble for the flight. It seems like an unreasonable risk to take just to get some advertising.

This event happened a year ago, and I'm not exactly sure why Times editor Dan Weikel is just writing about it now. One possibility is that Riggs can apply for a new pilot certificate soon. If he passes a flight exam, he'll be legal to operate aircraft and potentially make more poor decisions. Maybe Weikel is calling for a review of license suspension rules for dangerous violators. That might be reasonable.

Another possibility is that the FAA never seemed to finish their investigation of Riggs and his operation. It appears that he may have been conducting commercial flight operations with his L-39s in spite of lacking a commercial rating. The Times also asserts that his aircraft may have been in disrepair during those commercial operations. They quote a pair of former FAA inspectors that don't feel good about the investigation getting cut short. It sounds like a dangerous and shady situation...I wonder what prompted the FAA to stop where they did. Maybe they were busy lobbying congress for general aviation user fees. I'd sure be interested to hear their reasoning, but I digress...

Owning warbirds like the L-39 is as American as anything I can think of. In many countries, just getting permission to take a Cessna our for a couple hours is a feat. The fact that an American can purchase and operate just about any former military aircraft that he or she can afford is an amazing and wonderful freedom. We absolutely must fly responsibly if we want to keep this right though! Buzzing dangerously close to anyone is illegal for any pilot in any airplane. Doing so in loud, fast warbirds just makes the perception of recklessness even worse.

We can do our part by making responsible decisions ourselves. We also have to watch out for each other. I don't usually question decisions made by other pilots; I feel that people usually deserve the benefit of the doubt. However, in some extreme cases, such as David Riggs, we have to be willing to confront irresponsible pilots directly and help them understand the decisions they are making. With user fees and the like looming, we can't afford to have people actively making bad decisions. If you know someone who flies unsafely, take the time to help them remember why it's a bad idea and help them see better ways of doing things. It'll benefit all of us and it could even help save that pilot's life.