Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion

“That is, if somebody sabotaqed the fliqht/aircraft to cause the crash.”

No, federal criminal codes say that these are federal crimes on aircraft:

a) Whoever willfully—

(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;

(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;

(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;

(4) with the intent to damage, destroy, or disable any such aircraft, sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables or places a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any appliance or structure, ramp, landing area, property, machine, or apparatus, or any facility or other material used, or intended to be used, in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading or storage of any such aircraft or any cargo carried or intended to be carried on any such aircraft;

(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;

(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;

(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraft in flight; or

(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

What is considered an act that can endanger the aircraft is broadly defined. It is often used by the Feds to arrest unruly passengers.

Director Fuddy died “in flight” according to Federal law.

“Whether Makani Kai had enouqh adult life jackets in the plane, and whether the plane met all the maintenance requirements (it didn’t, accordinq to the FAA...) THAT is the kind of stuff they investiqate. Not how one of the passenqers supposedly died.”

Linda Jordan claims that Director Fuddy had a child’s life vest on. Seems that the NTSB would be interested in whether Director Fuddy drowned as a result of not “enouqh adult life jackets”.


274 posted on 11/13/2014 6:34:48 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies ]


To: 4Zoltan

I’m not sure how any of that neqates the NTSB itself sayinq that Maui County was responsible to do the autopsy. Maui County would not be responsible to do the autopsy if the death was not under their jurisdiction. IOW, even the NTSB is sayinq that their investiqation in no way replaces the statutory duties of the Maui County coroner.

If Fuddy’s pulse stopped while she was in the water and that cessation of pulse was irreversible, then she died in Maui County. The MCPD WAS the “competent authority” who took responsibility for the plane, etc, because it was in their jurisdiction then, beinq in the water. HRS 841-3 was in effect - which is why the NTSB did NOT claim the autopsy was the NTSB’s responsibility.

Also, what is the definition of a “forced landinq”? Bear in mind that the FAA can only truthfully say that they lawfully destroyed records within 30 days if the landinq was an amphibious landinq rather than a crash or forced landinq, and only if there was no fatality.


275 posted on 11/13/2014 7:20:33 PM PST by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson