NTSB where are you?

We are coming up on a year since the Boulder City crash. One has to wonder when/if the NTSB will finally issue their final report on that crash.

I don’t know much about the time it takes on these investigations, but it seems if it’s taking over a year, they must have a lot of questions.

Share on Facebook

David G. Riggs – broken ex pilot

It appears there is a very good reason why we haven’t heard anything from Riggs lately. He got an ouchie.

It seems that on January 15, 2013 Riggs managed to break his thigh bone. He claimed that he did it while doing beach clean up. Somehow, I don’t believe it, but we’ll have to wait and see. I have been told that since it is the “off season” community service doesn’t run beach cleanup in January.

But now he’s got a bigger problem. You see..there was a settlement reached in 2012 regarding a case brought against Riggs by an investor who lost $250,000. There was an agreement made that if Riggs made the payments the case would be dismissed and not turned into an official judgment.

He of course, didn’t. On January 13, 2013 he notified the attorney’s office that he wouldn’t be making the payments because since he lost his pilot license in November he wasn’t making any money. Of course he blamed all of this on the “extra judicial” attacks on his reputation (I guess he means me) although he put it in the email as though all of those involved in lawsuits against him were bullying and intimidating him. Since none of them are, or ever were, involved in this site, maybe not.

He didn’t mention the fact that two people died and that’s why he lost his license, which is what led to him not being able to make money. Details.

And then conveniently 2 days letter he broke his leg which has, according to him later, left him bedridden and totally disabled.

So when no payments got made on the settlement, the attorneys did the logical thing and filed a motion to reopen the case and enforce the settlement with a judgment.

The hearing was held April 10, 2013. Riggs sent a letter to the attorney on April 4, 2013 demanding that they postpone the hearing because of his “medical situation”. It’s really the last paragraph that just slays me

If I don’t hear from you confirming the extension of the date, I will have my friend hand carry a copy of this letter to the Bankruptcy Court April 10th and you can explain to him why you have chosen to take advantage of a bedridden disabled man in my medical condition.

All I could think when I read that was “spare me”

I also read the letter from the Doctor. Nowhere does it say he’s bedridden. It states he must be NON WEIGHT BEARING on that leg. See, there’s this nifty invention they came up with that some of you may have heard of. It’s called a wheel chair. If you absolutely, positively have to get there, you can. I’d be willing to bet in that situation insurance would cover it as well. And most court houses are wheelchair accessible. It also states that’s for THREE months (jan 15 – apr 15 would cover that) and that he could return to WORK in 6 months. If I was in that situation I’d want to deal with everything I could BEFORE I went back to work so I wouldn’t have to worry about it then, but that’s just me.

In addition, he states that he is staying with a friend. And a friend is going to take the letter to the court. Now his excuse for not knowing about the hearing is that he doesn’t have access to his mail. Don’t you think a friend could go and check your mail for you now and then if they are doing all this other stuff? I do. Especially when you know that the courts are looking for you pretty much every other day. Really.

Obviously the judge agreed since he put through the NONdischargeable $250,000 +10% interest judgment. Oh yeah, and attorney fees of $1742.50.

In addition, it made all of this PUBLIC RECORD, so once again we can all see that Riggs never seems to manage to honor any agreement, and always finds a way to try to blame someone else for his failures. He even advises the owner (plaintiff) to not post the tail number if he’s trying to sell the plane because a google search “reveals the problems with the plane”. THERE AREN’T ANY. You stole the plane and he fought to get it back, but that isn’t a PROBLEM WITH THE PLANE.

Good luck with that Riggs.

You can see the letter to the attorney demanding a postponement, the letter from his doctor and the letter to the court here.

Share on Facebook

No. We weren’t hacked

The offshore server had some sort of hiccup yesterday. We weren’t hacked. No worries.

I have some news coming in the next few days. It will be interesting. Stay tuned…

Share on Facebook

Almost one year

As we approach the one year anniversary of the Boulder City crash I find myself getting more and more angry with the system in this country and its failure to act. Yes, they pulled Riggs’ pilot certificate (for one year, big deal). But NOTHING else has been done. Why was Mach One not fined? Why was Incredible Adventures not held liable for their part in this? Why has nothing been done about the attempted witness intimidation in the NTSB hearing. The fact it failed should not matter.

And why are videos like this still on YouTube. Note..this was uploaded 10 months ago. Just prior to two people dying in a flight with Mach One Aviation. There is no question who put on this flight since Mach One Aviation is named..and linked to in this video.

Why is this guy still walking the streets after all the lies he told in the bankruptcy court? Why is Incredible Adventures still advertising flights (although, yes, they’ve changed the wording now) Why is Incredible Adventures still using pictures of the Wild Child. A plane that crashed and killed two people. Why are they using a picture of what appears to be (although I can’t prove it because you can’t read the tail number) a picture of the Lancair IVP that Riggs stole and had to give back?

There is so much information that has not been posted here and I promise you this..if they don’t do something..I will post it ALL. It’s disgusting that there have been NO consequences for 2 people (4 counting the Wild Child) that have lost their lives.

NOTHING has been done about the Fighter Combat flights either..how many people got ripped off? How many Christmases were ruined, as noted by the person who left a comment on the Yelp page for “Fighter Combat”. Since when is this crap okay?

Share on Facebook

Tiscareno case update

On July 23, 2012 Tiscareno filed a copyright infringement lawsuit (case number 4:12-cv-03841) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against me and he also named Netflix, Blockbuster, Kim Bass (the writer & director of “Kill Speed”), and Eric Norwitz (who is actually my attorney in the case, go figure) as defendants. He then dismissed Bass from the lawsuit in an amended Complaint.

This month the case was transferred back to Los Angeles where it belongs. It will now be held in front of the Honorable S. James Otero, who heard the previous case that Tiscareno filed against Kim Bass and others. As it should be.

If you are new here and wondering what this has to do with Riggs, you can read my previous post about it here.

Share on Facebook

I guess if he was actually famous

Maybe then they’d do something

Die Hard Director sentenced to prison for lying to feds”

Share on Facebook

Mach One Aviation – In default

While Mach I in California is still (!) tied up in bankruptcy court, Mach One in Nevada (the one that sued me) is .. again… in default.

machonedefault

Seems he only takes it out of default when he wants to sue somebody.

Share on Facebook

These are interesting

First video is a walk through the airport for a “Fighter Combat Inc” flight.

The pilot he talks to is the guy who testified at Riggs’ NTSB hearing. I saw this before but didn’t share it because it didn’t show the planes they were using, but then suddenly the 2nd video appears…

It’s the “customer” sitting in a plane talking to “Paul” the pilot.

They are sitting in Riggs’ plane.

Remember, selling flights in an experimental/exhibition plane is illegal. “Dog fights” in a Lancair? yeah..well.

AND the ads for those flights stated they were flying actual aerobatic planes including the Marchetti.

Share on Facebook

Questions for Law Enforcement/Government

Why are the millions of dollars stolen from investors not enough for prosecution?

Why are the obvious and blatant lies in Bankruptcy court not enough for prosecution?

Why is stealing a plane not enough for prosecution?

Why is the Fighter Combat scam not leading to any charges? I believe that is at best, false advertisement, at worse fraud.

Why does probation violation lead to revocation with no jail time or further punishment, but instead gives a person an additional year to complete his penalties?

I admit that I’m not a lawyer or a cop, but I’ve talked to enough attorneys and law enforcement to know that 70% of what you’d need to successfully prosecute a case is on this site..or at least it gives you the places to look and people to talk to.

And the rest of it is all readily available and more than a few people would gladly testify.

So why aren’t any of you people doing anything?

Share on Facebook

Mach One Aviation vs Me

While I will have a detailed post regarding this case coming soon, I want to make one thing VERY clear now.

This case was NOT settled. The ONLY thing I lost were the legal fees, and that was necessary because of the way the Nevada courts work (I’ll explain that in a more detailed post). And, Mach One had to pay my filing fees.

There is no confidentiality agreement. The site isn’t coming down. I didn’t pay Riggs or Mach One anything.

And it isn’t necessarily over because he could try to pull this again here in California. Although with the Anti-Slapp statutes that wouldn’t be very smart.

However, I do intend to give you a rundown of exactly what happened because I think this case demonstrates Riggs’ willingness to file lawsuits and drag them out for over a year for no other reason than HE CAN.

I still sit in absolute amazement that the authorities have, to date, done nothing. His abuse of people, his abuse of PRIVILEGES (flying is not a right). His abuse of the court system, both civil and the bankruptcy court. His thieving, his lying. DECADES of it. And yet they’ve done nothing.

It’s absolutely disgusting.

But I want it understood completely and 100%… Dave Riggs got NOTHING from me.

Share on Facebook

Nevada Court Case Update

Graham 1 – Riggs/Mach One 0

closed

cancelled2

More to come.

Case dismissed.

Share on Facebook

Interesting update

There is new information coming soon. All has been quiet but I do have something to share in the next few days so stay tuned.

Share on Facebook

I’m not the only one.

Thanks to the person who sent this article. Obviously these illegal flights aren’t a one time problem (never thought they were) and someone else sees the issue with it.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ain-blog-other-voices-gray-market-charter-flights-again-and-again-and-again

Gray-market charter refers to the practice of an aircraft owner or operator taking money for flying people when that owner and/or operator has no legal right to do so. These scam artists can use pilots who may not be licensed properly and airplanes that may not be maintained to meet the minimum safety regulations. Other well intentioned but poorly informed people make the mistake of letting their airplane go out on an illegal charter not knowing that they might well be in breach of their lending and insurance covenants. Even companies that are lax in their controls over who, or which division, has access to the corporate airplane and their charge-back system could be gray-market charterers and not even know it.

They go on to discuss whistle-blowers and that if there was some financial incentive maybe more people would be willing to turn these people in. I should have thought of that. Making money sure beats spending it.

Share on Facebook

Flights continue?

There is an interesting article on yahoo in regards to the FAA promise of safety in the airlines.

You can find it here.

While this centers around the safety of smaller “regional” airlines who have code sharing agreements with the larger airlines they fly for, the question should be the same for ALL companies who are putting planes in the air.

This leads to the question of what, if anything, is being done about companies who participate in illegal, and/or unsafe flights. Including the company that sold the flight that led to the death of Doug Gillis and Robert Winslow in Boulder City Nevada last year.

That company has been warned multiple times that those flights were illegal. Its President even left comments on this very site defending its actions and has threatened me more than once with a lawsuit.

And yet, even now, it continues to advertise them. Oh, it’s been toned down, taking off the name of Mach One Aviation, removed the China video, etc. It now lists the FAA regulations (sort of) and states that any flights have to be for the purpose of a production intended for future public viewing, etc.

The problem is that it states one of the acceptable things is a distributorship like YouTube. Both Judge Garaghty AND the FAA stated that these films, when for personal use, do not qualify as a movie. Youtube is not a distributor, unless perhaps it’s a music video or commercial.

But I just have this funny feeling they will just be more careful about how they have people fill out paperwork in the future but keep on trying to do the same old thing.

So it leads me around to my question in regards to the article above. What, if anything, is the FAA doing to ensure the safety of people doing business with these companies? I know they put companies like Air Combat Adventures through the ringer and double and triple check all their paperwork and plans. So what are they doing with THIS company?

And what are the ramifications for their part in the Boulder City crash? So far..nothing.

If the FAA is not going to hold these companies responsible and make them adhere to the rules/laws then it falls upon us. Which would be all hunky dorey if they were paying the legal fees when we get hit with lawsuits done for no other reason than to scare, intimidate and cost us money.

Share on Facebook

Fly a fighter jet in California

So tonight I was buzzing around on the internet..as I often do.

I was sent a link to a video of two leopards looking at a mirror in the wilderness and was checking it out.

It’s located here.

Now what, you ask would that have to do with this site.

Well, take a gander at the advertisement that appeared next to the video:

wimp

Flights in Military Fighter Jets! Oh my!

So of course I go:

fighterjet

Well now..that makes me curious (and it’s NOT Incredible Adventures, although flyfighterjets.com is)

So, let’s click on the L-39 in California shall we:

l39california

I swear to all that is holy, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted to.

The L-39s available for you to fly off near Los Angeles, CA are exactly the ones used in many Hollywood Blockbusters. James Bond and Lord of War are only two examples. And now, you’re next!

Well, we all know what plane that is don’t we?

Share on Facebook

Things that make you go hmmmm

http://afterburnerjets.com used to direct to http://machoneaviation.com

http://machoneaviation.com was the site for .. Mach One Aviation. It had all the phone numbers, pictures, stories, ads for flight training, etc.

Now.

It’s a big fat white screen.

If you go to what were the “back pages” (like the contact page for example) you get a 401 error page.

Interesting.

Checking the registration on both domains shows the following:

afterburnerjets.com

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: AFTERBURNERJETS.COM
Created on: 12-Sep-08
Expires on: 12-Sep-13
Last Updated on: 26-Jul-12

Registrant:
Mach One Aviation
12400 Ventura Blvd
Suite 674
Studio City CA, California 91604
United States

Administrative Contact:
Riggs, David flysafela@aol.com
Mach One Aviation
12400 Ventura Blvd
Suite 674
Studio City CA, California 91604
United States
+1.3104630115

Technical Contact:
Riggs, David flysafela@aol.com
Mach One Aviation
12400 Ventura Blvd
Suite 674
Studio City CA, California 91604
United States
+1.3104630115

Domain servers in listed order:
NS73.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS74.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

So that one is good until September 2013

machoneaviation.com

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: MACHONEAVIATION.COM
Created on: 26-Mar-04
Expires on: 26-Mar-13
Last Updated on: 27-Mar-12

Registrant:
Mach One Aviation
12400 Ventura Blvd
Suite 674
Studio City CA, California 91604
United States

Administrative Contact:
Riggs, David flysafela@aol.com
Mach One Aviation
12400 Ventura Blvd
Suite 674
Studio City CA, California 91604
United States
+1.3104630115

Technical Contact:
Riggs, David flysafela@aol.com
Mach One Aviation
12400 Ventura Blvd
Suite 674
Studio City CA, California 91604
United States
+1.3104630115

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HOSTING4DAYS.COM
NS2.HOSTING4DAYS.COM

So that one is good until March 2013.

This means they haven’t expired, but, for any number of reasons, have been intentionally taken down.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Share on Facebook

Mach One Aviation – San Francisco?

http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Mach.One.Aviation.818-787-8500

It lists this information:

7240 Hayvenhurst Ave., San Francisco, CA 94106
1-818-787-8500
www.machoneaviation.com
Member since December 2011

That address is actually Van Nuys CA (Van Nuys airport, or near it)
818 is a Los Angeles area code

and the real interesting part…

If you go to machoneaviation.com now…everything is gone.

This is also the only one I’ve ever seen that lists the FAA Regulation it’s approved under:

trainers capably cover everything from jet transition to upset, formation
and aerobatic training approved by the Federal Aviation Authority under the Federal
Aviation Regulation 91.319 (h).

That Regulation states:

(h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section
for the purpose of conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of deviation authority.
(1) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at any time.
(2) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority to the FAA at least 60 days before the date of
intended operations. A request for deviation authority must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the regulations for the deviation requested.
(i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary, including
limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.

The problem here, in my opinion, is that the site seems to be advertising the flights for use in movie/film production. That would fall under the movie waiver discussed previously, not under a regulation that is for TRAINING.

Mix and match?

Share on Facebook

Court

It’s truly looking like this Nevada case against me is going to end up at a jury trial.

Mach One Aviation vs little ol’ me.

It’s still mind boggling to me that NO ONE is doing anything to this creep for his actions and yet he can sue me for lying, when I haven’t lied. About ANYTHING.

So I guess I will have to prove it in court.

Share on Facebook

FAA Issues SAFO for L-39s

With the report that there was a call of “canopy” before the L-39 went down in Boulder City this article is interesting. I suppose it explains another reason why these are considered “experimental/exhibition” aircraft and why selling rides in them is illegal.

Full article at Aero-News

The FAA has released a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) directed to owners, operators, repair stations, and mechanics holding Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) certificates, concerning service difficulties and safety issues associated with the Aero Vodochody L-39C and L-39ZA variants. According to the agency, aircrews have experienced one or both canopies separating from the aircraft, or partially opening, while in-flight.

These instances have occurred with a CANOPY LOCKED indication from the aircraft’s annunciator panel warning light. Analyses of these events show a potential for a false indication from the canopy unlock light. Some of the possible causes for this problem include misalignment of the microswitches sensing the canopy position; failure of the latches on the right side of the canopy to fully engage, possibly caused by a physical obstruction or foreign object interfering with the latches; the canopy hold-open bar becoming distorted and obstructing the right-side canopy latches; and the canopy latches becoming misaligned, subject to wear, corrosion, faulty components, or improper maintenance.

It is advised that the actions below be accomplished every 100 hours of flight time, or as incorporated into the aircraft’s inspection program:

Inspect the micro switches in the front and rear canopy lock mechanism and make sure they are functioning and aligned per instructions in the Aero Vodochody factory maintenance manual. Perform these checks with the canopy both installed and removed.

Inspect the canopy for any foreign objects which may interfere with the right side latching mechanism.
Inspect the condition of the hold-open bars at the front and rear canopies. The bars are located on the right rear portion of the front canopy or on the right front section of the rear canopy. They should not be bent, distorted, or otherwise damaged.

With the canopy removed, inspect the canopy latches and verify the latches are holding and the springs are tight per procedures in the Aero Vodochody factory maintenance manual.
Place placards in view of front and rear seat occupants asking them to ensure that the canopy is secure prior to flight.

Amend the aircraft checklist to include checking of the canopy to ensure that it is secure.

The FAA says that owners, operators, repair stations, and mechanics that operate and maintain Aero Vodochody L-39C and L-39ZA airplanes should familiarize themselves with the information found in this SAFO, and in the associated Airworthiness Certification job aid.

Share on Facebook

Tony Tiscareno – Part 1

You may remember that I have written several times in Aviation Criminal about a copyright infringement lawsuit” (case number 2:10-cv-00440) that was filed during 2010 by a fellow named Tony Tiscareno in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles regarding a screenplay, “FASTGLASS,” Tiscareno allegedly wrote more than a decade earlier. “FASTGLASS” should not to be confused with a similarly named screenplay, “Fast Glass,” written by Kim Bass that I also have discussed in AC. The federal judge, S. James Otero, dismissed that case against five of the defendants with prejudice (Tiscareno couldn’t sue them again) because Tiscareno failed to state a proper legal claim against them. During May 2011, only eight days before the trial was scheduled to begin on Tiscareno’s copyright infringement claim against Kim Bass, Judge Otero, acting at Tiscareno’s request, dismissed that claim without prejudice and the trial never occurred. Talk about a waste of time and money for everyone.

Back in July 2012, I explained Tiscareno had sent me a letter demanding that I remove a recent post on Aviation Criminal about the movie, “Kill Speed,” because it contained a link to a trailer that allegedly infringed upon a copyright Tiscareno allegedly owned in a screenplay, “FASTGLASS,” Tiscareno allegedly wrote more than a decade earlier (I know, I wrote “allegedly” three times ). Because the linked video was hosted on YouTube and for other reasons, I disagreed with Tiscareno’s copyright infringement accusation against me and I pretty much told him to take a leap in a subsequent AC post.
Well, it’s been more than six months since I received Tiscareno’s demand letter and I want to let you know what has been happening. It will take a while so this is the first installment about my involvement with Tiscareno in the federal civil judicial system.

On July 23, 2012 Tiscareno filed a copyright infringement lawsuit (case number 4:12-cv-03841) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against me and he also named Netflix, Blockbuster, Kim Bass (the writer & director of “Kill Speed”), and Eric Norwitz (an attorney) as defendants. Tiscareno filed his complaint in San Francisco (remember Mach One Aviation Inc. sued me in Las Vegas – how interesting). The case was assigned to a magistrate judge, but Tiscareno requested an Article III judge (which he had a right to do) and the case was re-assigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in Oakland (still pretty far from my Los Angeles area residence).

Even though Eric Norwitz was also a defendant, I hired him as my attorney in the federal case because I was aware of his previous legal work defending people against Tiscareno in L.A. Superior Court case BC377905 that resulted in $11,700 in sanctions being imposed against Tiscareno. After my attorney sent a letter to Tiscareno demanding that his federal case be dismissed, Tiscareno filed a first amended complaint for copyright infringement that dropped Kim Bass as a defendant and added “Underhost Networks, Ltd., a Canadian Company” as a defendant. Tiscareno has sued Kim Bass three times since 2008 without any success.

According to Tiscareno’s first amended complaint, I allegedly helped promote, exploit, and distribute copyrighted property that allegedly was stolen from Tiscareno, who is asking for $300,000 in actual damages, $900,000 in treble punitive damages, and other relief.

To be continued….

Share on Facebook

Our system is just sad

I have no other word for it. Had this conversation with someone today:

His refund notification from Groupon:

I’m sorry you weren’t able to enjoy this Groupon. I’ve just canceled this order and issued $599 in Groupon Bucks to your account.

This credit is available in your account immediately, does not expire, and will automatically apply to your future purchases until it runs out. You can see your Groupon Bucks balance by clicking on your name in the top right corner of http://Groupon.com. Your Bucks will be displayed at the top of your My Groupons page.

Please let me know if I can help you further.

Regards,

P J.
Groupon Customer Support

My response:
Groupon Bucks? you don’t get your cash back?

Him:

Requested monies back .

They Replied

No problem. I just issued a full refund back to the credit card you used for this purchase instead. Please allow up to 10 business days for this to be reflected on your statement.

Regards,

P J.
Groupon Customer Support

Thanks for the heads ups .
If you had not sent information ( which I forwared to Groupon ) I would probably would have been given the run around !
I called and tried to complain to Comsumer Affairs — but I did not deal directly with them –Groupon did – therefore they will have to file .

Sort of out of my hands and not my bussiness now – which s – - ks .
Thanks again for the heads up.

So even the victims can’t file a complaint because Groupon is the middleman. And since Groupon has proven to not give two hoots (as evidenced by them continuing to sell these flights after they were made aware of the situation) that won’t happen.

Ask me again why this site exists.

Share on Facebook

The scam continues

Riggs has had his pilot certificate revoked for a year. (Hopefully) his attorney will be investigated for witness intimidation. The lawsuit against the Canadians has been dropped. And yet, the victims are still showing up. todays latest discovery:

yelp

I repeat, if you bought a Fighter Combat, Inc flight and have now discovered that you were ripped off, conned, defrauded, whatever term you want to put on it, contact the Los Angeles Department of Consumer Affairs and file a complaint.

You can go to this link to file one online.

Contact the FAA and file a complaint. You can call them at 1-866-TELL-FAA

Contact the Los Angeles District Attorney.

Bureau of Investigation
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
210 West Temple Street, Rm. 17-1102
Los Angeles, CA. 90012
Phone: (213) 974-3612

Contact the Santa Monica City Attorney since we believe that is where Riggs lives and Santa Monica already successfully prosecuted him for the Pier incident.

Consumer Protection Unit
1685 Main Street, third floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel (310) 458-8336
TYY (310) 458-8696

Contact the Van Nuys City Attorney since that is the city that Fighter Combat, Inc purported to be doing business from and the planes are based at Van Nuys (both planes that appear in the Fighter Combat video, Dave Riggs and David LaFailles are hangared there).

Van Nuys City Attorney

In the memo that we got after the NTSB hearing it specifically stated that advertising a flight was not illegal, however, advertising a flight and NOT DELIVERING IT is.

Don’t let them get away with it.

And personally I think even if you got a refund you should file a complaint because you did not get the service you purchased because the company didn’t exist.

Share on Facebook

Isn’t this interesting

Does anyone else find it interesting that this site states Dave Riggs owns the L-39 N139CK?

This website is the home of the N139CK L39 Albatross Jet. The L39 is a Jet Fighter Trainer commonly used for Hollywood Films and TV Shows. The owner of this plane is Dave Riggs, a pilot who has set 5 aviation world records including one in the L39 at 561 MPH in 2003.

According to Riggs previously, that plane is owned by Nazarene Aviation Fellowship, a “non-profit” in Nevada. Nazarene Aviation Fellowship is owned by Jerry Brockhaus. Just like Mach One Aviation is.

The timing of that ownership is very interesting as well, but that’s another story.

I recall that Riggs even testified to the ownership of that plane in the NTSB hearing in November.

As usual, he will say or do whatever suits his fancy in the moment. Truth be damned.

Share on Facebook

Excerpts from the Oral Initial Decision and Order

“Mr. Riggs maintained that he is simply an employee of Mach One and simply holds a title of CEO, that he has no equity interest in Mach One, he’s not a shareholder, and he’s simply paid a percentage of profit when Mach One makes a profit, and I guess whenever the contract is fulfilled with Incredible Adventures, you know, a film or whatever else they were doing, you know, fly a MIG in Russia.”

“He maintains that at all times he has conducted the flights in conformance with the requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations, specifically denying that at any time these particular flight were for the purposes of compensation or hire. He was never informed that they were birthday gifts, that he considered that the activity was simply to be making a movie and that the individuals would then be actors and that any film produced would be subsequently shopped to YouTube, the Internet, fill-in, you know, whoever, I guess, would want to buy the film, and that it would be a “reality” type thing so that perople were not told too much so that they could be not prepared and stiff and could simply react. And, therefore, they were never told that they were to be actors or that they were to be making a particular type of movie, and that when he did the quotation marks, which he admits that he did do, it was in a broader context and simply something that he does in every type of briefing he gives whenever conducting these types of flights”

“He also conceded that the flights were not done for free, that he knew that compensation or payment somewhere had been made down the line or earlier in the line and that he fully expected to be paid if film had been produced.”

Speaking in regards to Jane Reifert’s (Incredible Adventures) deposition:
“On page 16 of the deposition, she stated she couldn’t speak to the expectations of the individuals for the rides on the 18th.”

“On page 24, she states, all I know about the film shoot in Las Vegas is that there were to be multiple aircraft. She says that’s all she knows. She had no communication, again on page 24, with Ms. Young prior to may 18.”

“She states that Incredible Adventures is basically a middleman. They contract with a person who wants a video–that’s her testimony—with a person who could provide it. And that would be Ms. Young and her group of people and in this case Mach One and the Respondent; the person who wants the video for the experience and the ones who can furnish it”

He previously stated:
“But it’s clear from the emails between Ms. Young and Greg, who is an employee of Incredible Adventures — and I’m not sure exactly what his capacity, whether salesman or what — that Incredible Adventures knew through the employee, Mr. Greg, that the purpose of the flight as contracted by Ms. Young was to give experience rides to birthday participants.”

He then continues:
“And since there are multiple instances where Incredible Adventures has contracted with Mach One and the Respondent over this course of time, I find it quite unbelievable that neither Ms. Reifert nor the Respondent knew that these people had only the expectation that they were getting an experience ride and keepsake video or DVD; not that they were to be actors. And I make that specific finding on credibility. It’s simply not believable.” (emphasis mine).

Later he states:
“I’ve also closely considered the manner in which the witnesses gave their testimony and contrasted the testimony given by the three witnesses here on the part of the Complainant with that given by the Respondent himself. I found the Respondents responses to be equivocating. I felt that he repeatedly attempted to not give a forthright answer; whereas, the Complainant’s witnesses, I believe, were quite straightforward both in their direct testimony and in responses on cross-examination.” (emphasis mine)

“A lawsuit was threatened against all of the witnesses that the FAA could have called, the participants in this. And this was filed just days before this proceeding was to take place. The clear tone of this letter and the attachments thereto are clearly a threat, that if you appear and testify and there is any kind of consequence to the Respondent, we are going to sue you. Whether or not the lawsuit would be successful is beside the point. It’s clear these people would be under the impression that this has been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, that if you testify and then something happens to the Respondent, you’re going to have to defend yourself, which means you’re going to have to get counsel, expend money and all the rest of it.”

(That sounds familiar).

“The only reason this was filed as far as I can determine, and that’s what I do determine, was an attempt to preclude these witnesses in some way of appearing here. Why would you do that? Beacuse you are afraid of the testimony that these witnesses could give. This was, in my view, an unconscionable action. If you wanted to file suit, you could have filed suit next week and there wouldn’t have been any question about coercion on the witnesses. But it was deliberately filed just shortly before the hearing and I take it as a clear attempt to effect the testimony, or preclude the testimony and appearance by the witnesses. And that strongly goes against credibility on the part of the Respondent’s entire presentation.”

“As the Board has clearly held, it expects pilots not to have a violation history because you’re expected to comply with the Regulations. If you do, you don’t have a violation history. But conversely, if there is a violation history, it’s to be taken into account as to that particular individual’s disposition with respect to compliance with the requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations and the impact on public interest in aviation safety.”

“I find that in consideration of all the evidence in this case, that the appropriate sanction is that of revocation because, in total, upon consideration of everything, that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent lacks qualification to hold the airman’s certificate which he holds in that he has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the requirements fo the Federal Aviation Regulations. And in my view on the evidence has resorted to waht, in my view — and this is my view, a sham to get around the requirements to consider anybody that comes in there and he’s going to designate them an actor without any consent on the part of the other individuals or any knowledge that they are participating in something. To me, he’s exercising an ability to utilize the language, if you will, to shield himself from the requirements and to give a patina of conducting an operation which is legal, when in fact it wasn’t legal, and it was operation for compensation or hire. And there, that does demonstrate a disposition not to comply with the requirements of the Regulations.” (emphasis mine)

Share on Facebook

The Decision

The Oral Initial Decision and Order in the hearing regarding the L-39 flight in Boulder City Nevada is now available. I obtained a copy this morning and you can read it here.

There are some portions of this that I think are very interesting and relevant. I will get into those later but I did want to make this available to those who may be interested in it.

Share on Facebook

Welcome 2013

Let’s start 2013 on a good note shall we?

The old saying “if it sounds too good to be true..it probably is” proved true for some people who bought the “Fighter Combat” flights.

I stated in my last post that if I was a millionaire I would find the parents of the kid who was supposed to get a flight for Christmas and send him to Air Combat USA, or Air Combat International, two companies that are honest, safe and doing things the right way.

Well. Mike Blackstone, the President of Air Combat USA is showing us that there ARE good, honest people out there who also have some empathy for people in the line of fire from this scam. He left a comment today stating:

I am appalled!
I want to help these victims! I created Air Combat USA in 1989 because I love sharing the thrill of being “Fighter Pilot For A Day”. We created an industry that has been copied all over the world.
My company has flown over 40,000 closet “fighter pilots” in REAL military aircraft. Our aircraft are FAA certified as well as our program.
If you have been scammed by this thief, call me and I will reduce our fighter pilot for a day Phase 1 price to help you get what you paid for!!!
Mike 800-522-7590 x 25

I don’t know exactly what discount he can give, but I would suggest you give him a call and find out if you are one of the people who got suckered on this deal. I would again also recommend that you file a complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs.

People who do this kind of stuff will never be stopped if people don’t stand up to them and hold them accountable..and make them pay for their actions.

I don’t know about the readers here, but I needed this. I needed some good to start outweighing the bad. And most importantly I needed living breathing proof that there are good people out there.

And rest assured, one of these days I’ll be taking one of his flights too!

Share on Facebook

Happy New Year to all

I wanted to take a minute to wish you all a very Happy and Safe New Year.

Sadly, we know that at least one child’s Christmas was ruined due to this Fighter Combat mess and I wish I was a millionaire. I swear, I’d find that mother and buy a plane ride for her kid with a reputable business like Air Combat USA or Air Combat International.

Instead, I’ll be working on paperwork for the lawsuit in Nevada. I still sit in amazement that I am being sued for telling the truth, while a serial criminal is sitting somewhere, I’m sure, plotting his next scam.

Oh what a world we live in.

Here’s hoping that everyone gets exactly what they deserve in 2013.

Cheers!

Share on Facebook

Fighter Combat is no more.

Sad. The website is gone and apparently the phone has been disconnected. Unless the FAA has information those jerks will get away with ripping all those people off. But at least nobody will get hurt.

When you go to the company website: http://caacro.wix.com/aircombat

You get this:

I’d sure like to know what authorities we could contact to make a formal complaint.

I advise ANYONE who finds this site in regards to these flights make a complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs. And I advise you include Groupon or Living Social in that complaint if that’s who you bought the flights from because they were TOLD by media that it was a scam. And I would demand that the authorities get the paperwork from Group On or Living Social. That paperwork will have names.

Share on Facebook

Still a high flyer?

It’s interesting that this report was written in 2009 but just about could have been written now.

It’s about the Santa Monica incident but so much of it is still true today. FAA investigators that failed in investigating (although ultimately I guess they came through to some degree this time, thank you people). Riggs blaming someone else for his actions. The eye being turned on the experimental and warbird community because of his actions. In the same plane no less.

But the part that most grabbed my attention today…

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.

Yes, he did finally get his commercial, but no those flights weren’t legal. As evidenced by the decision in NTSB court a couple weeks ago.

And the judge even stated he felt that Riggs and Jane from Incredible Adventures perpetuated a “sham”.

And yet, today, December 28, 2012, Incredible Adventures is still advertising these flights on their website.

Just. Wow.

There really is no honesty or integrity with these people. None.

I would be so curious to know what they say when someone contacts them wanting to book these flights. Riggs can’t do them. Anyone else who would after what just happened would have to be a moron. So do they admit that? Or do they give some excuse of .. I don’t know..the plane is broke..it’s booked for a movie for the next year..etc. Mind boggling really.

Share on Facebook

Merry Christmas

I’d just like to take a moment to wish all the visitors, readers and friends that read here a very merry and safe Christmas.

Share on Facebook

Score one for the good guys (and girls)

Funny that this got dropped three days after he lost. And after his attorney (different attorney than the one who filed this) sent these people a letter telling them if they testified he would sue them. They testified. He lost. So what gives Mr. Riggs?

Share on Facebook

What’s next for David G. Riggs?

One has to wonder.

I believe that today is the last day for him to be able to file an appeal on the NTSB hearing last week. I was told that notice was given that he would be, but so far no word that it’s actually done.

In the meantime I keep thinking about the Fighter Combat flights that have reportedly been taking place in Lancairs. Information so far seems to support that the two main planes involved in this are Riggs and Dave LaFaille. The video that was found very clearly showed both of them. These appear to be the same types of flights being done that were being done in the L-39. Flights for hire under the guise of making a movie.

With the current weather in California (rainy) those flights can’t possibly be happening here but that can change at any moment. It is also confirmed that they have been scheduling flights in Phoenix so that’s an option.

It’s obvious that Riggs can always find pilots wanting to make a buck, so in theory they could keep right on doing these flights, at least until they get caught. The money must be good because why else would you risk your ticket? Riggs testified that Doug Gilliss was being paid $750 a day for those L-39 flights. I can’t figure out how the guys doing the Lancair flights could even be making that much (not to mention wear and tear on their own planes). Is this really worth your ticket, or even your life?

One of the pilots who testified that he’s been doing these flights for YEARS is an ATP, CFI, etc etc. He seemed bright. I hope he realizes what he’s risked by doing these flights and takes the time to really think about if it’s worth it. I doubt he can get in trouble for his testimony, the flights would be too old to prosecute I suppose, so he’s got a free pass. I hope he takes it.

I do hope the FAA continues their investigation into the Fighter Combat thing. I hope they find someone that took one of these flights that will have the guts to get up and testify to the truth, just as the Canadians did. I hope mostly, that they can actually catch them doing it.

Share on Facebook

Federal Intimidation

After that last post it occurred to me that the NTSB Hearing that is relevant here was actually a FEDERAL proceeding, not state. So, I got my hands on the information that relates to the Federal statutes. Again, the emphasis is mine.

18 U.S.C. 1512(b) states:

“Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, [1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

18 U.S.C. 1512(d) states:

“Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, [1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.”

I assume that 1512(d) would not apply as they did NOT succeed in keeping the witnesses from testifying.

Share on Facebook

California Penal Code 136.1

Thank you to the reader who let me know the specific code. (emphasis below is mine)

136.1. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who does any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Knowingly and maliciously prevents or dissuades any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.
(2) Knowingly and maliciously attempts to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law.

(3) For purposes of this section, evidence that the defendant was a family member who interceded in an effort to protect the witness or victim shall create a presumption that the act was without malice.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), every person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from doing any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison:
(1) Making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole or correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge.
(2) Causing a complaint, indictment, information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.
(3) Arresting or causing or seeking the arrest of any person in connection with that victimization.
(c) Every person doing any of the acts described in subdivision (a) or (b) knowingly and maliciously under any one or more of the following circumstances, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where the act is accompanied by force or by an express or implied threat of force or violence, upon a witness or victim or any third person or the property of any victim, witness, or any third person.
(2) Where the act is in furtherance of a conspiracy.
(3) Where the act is committed by any person who has been convicted of any violation of this section, any predecessor law hereto or any federal statute or statute of any other state which, if the act prosecuted was committed in this state, would be a violation of this section.
(4) Where the act is committed by any person for pecuniary gain or for any other consideration acting upon the request of any other person. All parties to such a transaction are guilty of a felony. (that means for money)
(d) Every person attempting the commission of any act described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) is guilty of the offense attempted without regard to success or failure of the attempt. The fact that no person was injured physically, or in fact intimidated, shall be no defense against any prosecution under this section.
(e) Nothing in this section precludes the imposition of an enhancement for great bodily injury where the injury inflicted is significant or substantial.
(f) The use of force during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (c) shall be considered a circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a term of imprisonment under subdivision (b) of Section 1170.

Share on Facebook

Caught in the act

If you take a look here you can see the letter that was emailed to the 3 Canadian witnesses 48 hours prior to the NTSB hearing from Riggs’ attorney (not the same attorney who actually filed the case).

One truly interesting part of this states:

“Be advised that any false statements you make or false testimony given can potentially render you subject to criminal prosecution, or render you civilly liable. Further if it is found the subject flight was illegal or violative of the Federal Aviation Regulations, you may be found responsible as the “operator” of the aircraft or causing or authorizing the subject flight.

If that is true for the Canadians, who told the truth, then it ALSO holds true for David Riggs who lied (Many people have stated that when Riggs lies he turns red. Well, all I can say is that through those two days he looked like a pomegranate…and that was about the palest he ever got).

In addition, the ONLY people who were “operators” of those flights were Incredible Adventures and Mach One as the companies that arranged them, and Doug Gillis and David Riggs who were the Pilots in Command.

So who needs to be contacting an attorney now?

I would think if there are criminal or civil liabilities (and there should be both) we know who that is going to fall back on don’t we?

I have the actual complaint as well but it needs to redacted so I will post it soon.

Share on Facebook

Riggs continues to play dirty

While the news everyone was waiting for was whether his certificate was revoked, I think the big part of the events of those few days was the lawsuit and threats against the witnesses from Canada who were directly involved with the flights that day.

Even IF the claims Riggs made (that these were “movie flights” for some unknown reality show) were true (they weren’t) the actions taken to stop them still would have been atrocious. While this wasn’t something like a threat of physical harm the intent behind it was just as nasty.

The events went as such:

On Dec 10, 2012 in the Los Angeles Superior Court case # EC059911 was filed. This lawsuit is:
Mach One Aviation Inc, a Nevada Corporation vs. Sandy Young, Gary Gustavson and Mike Smith (all three reside in Canada)
The Attorneys for Plaintiff Mach One Aviation, Inc. is the Law Office of Paul H. Sweeney, in Los Angeles California.

The complaint was filed 48 hours before the NTSB hearing.

On either Dec 10 or 11, 2012 (I’m not positive which), a letter was delivered to each of the three potential Canadian witnesses. I have not seen the letter, but based on what I heard during the hearing, the letter came from the Law Offices of Hoff and Herran in Chicago, Illinois, who represented Riggs in the NTSB hearing. As stated in a previous post, the letter told the witnesses that if they appeared and testified, and if “Respondent” suffered any consequences “we will sue you”.

In theory this could signify a second lawsuit!

The lawsuit filed by the Law Offices of Sweeney alleges the Canadian witnesses intentionally interfered with Mach One Aviation, Inc.’s Prospective Economic Relations for the reason that they supposedly gave false statements about the events of May 18, 2012.

As I’ve stated ad nauseum on this site, this is how Riggs operates. Evidently, he has no problem using the courts to try to get what he wants. It has become clear to me, based on my investigations and my own personal experience that Riggs continues to use the judicial system as his own personal henchman. The Nevada lawsuit against me is a perfect example. We filed to have it dismissed because he doesn’t do business in Nevada, he does it here. And yet, Riggs stated to the court in Nevada that Mach One Aviation, Inc, does its primary business in Nevada, so I am forced to fight this frivolous lawsuit there. I am forced to spend money I don’t have to defend myself against a person who has proven himself to me to be a habitual liar. And why did he file the Nevada lawsuit against me? To intimidate me; to shut this website down.

Mr. Riggs and Mach One Aviation Inc and your lawyers… It didn’t work.

Riggs’ similar tactics didn’t work againt the FAA or the Canadian witnesses either.

And should Mach One Aviation, Inc decide to follow through with its suit against the Canadians, I doubt it will have much luck. An Administrative Law Judge has already determined in his oral ruling that the Canadian witnesses were truthful and David Riggs had NO credibility. Those people were vindicated with the ruling that was handed down. And I’m not sure what Mach One Aviation, Inc can do against people in another country. Doesn’t he have to sue them in Canada?

But Riggs, by testifying and through his attorneys questioning and statements didn’t stop there.

During his examination of Mrs. Young Riggs’ council incredibly asked Ms. Young (who bought the flights as a present for her husband’s 60th birthday), IF SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EVENTS OF THAT DAY!

This lovely lady, who was not at the crash site, was already emotional while testifying to the results of that day, and he threw that out there? Jinkies Batman! No class sir. None.

Later, the lawyer asked Ms. Young where she was going after the hearing. The Judge admonished Riggs’ attorney TWICE that Ms. Youngs plans when that hearing ended were NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.

What could have been the relevance of that question, except maybe to find out what hotel she was staying at? For what? Did Mach One Aviation, Inc. want to serve Ms. Young with a summons at her hotel? Maybe. I have no idea what other reason they could have to want to know her whereabouts after the proceedings ended.

At one point, the judge had to tell Attorney Hoff to move back to the table because he was “hovering” over Mrs. Young. The judge stated it was an obvious attempt to intimidate her.

Why would someone do this for someone with the history of someone like David Glen Riggs? One has to wonder how much of his history (criminal and otherwise) was known to the attorney prior to the beginnings of this case?

This is of course my opinion but I sat through a two day hearing before Judge Garaghty and I sat through a portion of Randy Shatz’ hearing (which Riggs also lost) and I find it all disturbing. Obviously, Riggs will do whatever and say whatever he thinks is necessary to attempt to extricate himself from the trouble of the day, no holds barred. Indeed.

Share on Facebook

Potential for appeal

The judge stated that Riggs has 2 days from the day of service (yesterday) to notify of his intent to appeal. He has 5 days to file the appeal. Those are calendar days, so Saturday and Sunday count.

Share on Facebook

FAA 2 – David Glen Riggs 0

A lawsuit that threatened against witnesses, filed 2 days before the hearing. A letter that was clearly a threat “If you appear and testify and there is any consequence to respondent we will sue you” was an attempt to preclude witnesses from appearing.

“An unconscionable action” – Judge Patrick Geraghty

While this was one of the final statements in the two day hearings it probably sums it up better than anything else.

As I’m sure everyone is aware, David G. Riggs lost his appeal to the NTSB of the Emergency Revocation of his pilot certificate.

A day and a half of testimony supported what many have said for years. While this hearing centered solely on the flights of May 18, 2012 it brought discussion of many of the L-39 flights, especially those done in conjunction with Incredible Adventures.

I felt much of it was answered by this memorandum that was sent to Jeff Gordon of the Van Nuys FSDO on March 28, 2011 from Rebecca MacPherson in the Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel.

This was a response to a request for interpretation regarding the applicability of certain operating limitations issued for experimental aircraft.

Specifically, he questioned Operating Limitations 10 and 12.

10 talks about those who are “essential” in airshows, motion pictures, television etc for the purpose of flight
12 states NO compensation or hire in experimental aircraft

It should be noted that this request was sent by the Van Nuys FSDO on March 17, 2010 and was specific to Riggs’ activities. While you can read the entire memo at the above link (which Riggs admitted in court that he did not because he “couldn’t find it on the site” after they told him of it’s existance two weeks prior to the March 18, 2012 crash) but let me give you the highlight:

The agency does not consider carrying a person on an aircraft while making a DVD of that person operating the controls of the aircraft during the flight to constitute carrying that person for a “motion picture, televison, or similar production” when the DVD is intended primarily for that individual’s personal use.

It states VERY clearly here that those YouTube videos, which are nothing more than shots of someone hanging out in the backseat and maybe handling the controls are NOT movies. No matter how any times Riggs and his council wanted to say it was a “serious movie making project”.

Three witnesses testified in regards to these flights. Sandra Young, the wife of the man who was celebrating his 60th birthday with these “adventures”. She paid for all 8 flights in excess of $21,000. Gary Gustavson a friend who was invited to fly. And Mike Smith, also a friend who was, sadly, the person occupying the backseat of Riggs’ plane when the plane carrying Doug Gilliss and Richard Winslow crashed.

All 3 testified that this was an adventure. They expected to fly around for a bit, land and would get a “keepsake” DVD. Sandy Young stated more than once that she wasn’t even interested in the video but “Greg” from Incredible Adventures pushed it and told her it was part of the “package”.

All 3 testified that they were not in ANY way making a movie.

Riggs testified that he was told he was to do a 22 or 28 (depending on when he was speaking) minute “reality show”. He explained, in more detail than necessary, that they have “stock film” of the exterior of the planes flying that they then edit in with the “interior shots” that would be done, add music and now it’s a movie.

My question (which didn’t get asked) was why, if they had all this “stock film” of exterior shots, did they need to fly in formation (another FAR he was accused of breaking)?

Jane Reifert from Incredible Adventures did a deposition which was entered in to the record as well. I have not, as yet, read the full deposition but let me share with you what the Judge shared during his summary.

Jane Reifert DENIED that Incredible Adventures advertises thrill rides. — The judge disagreed based upon comparing looking at the website which states an “INCREDIBLE HALF DAY MAKING YOUR OWN TOP GUN MOVIE! A QUALITY VIDEO THAT IS YOURS TO KEEP!”

Jane Reifert stated that she couldn’t speak to the expectations of the individuals on the 18th, even though there were emails between an Incredible Adventures employee and Sandy Young stating it was a birthday celebration AND in direct opposition to Dave Riggs’ testimony that it was Incredible Adventures who allegedly told him it was a shoot for a reality show.

Jane Reifert stated “all I know about Las Vegas is there were to be multiple aircraft”.

She apparently also stated that she is not familiar with the business that Mach One Aviation does and that Incredible Adventures is simply a middleman who contracts with people who want the video and those who can furnish it.

The judge stated that he found it “unbelievable” that neither Jane Reifert nor David Riggs knew that this was a birthday party. Nor did he believe that Jane doesn’t know Riggs’ business as they have been in business together for years.

He found for the FAA on the topic of credibility, in as much as “in his view” Jane Reifert and Dave Riggs participated in a sham.

More tomorrow when I’ve had a chance to organize my notes. There is a LOT of information to get through.

Share on Facebook

NTSB hearing was an adventure

Spent the day at the hearing for Riggs’ revocation appeal. It was a doozy.

I am not going to do a full update until the hearing concludes.

There is an update on Aero-News that should tide some people over.

You can find it here

I will have a complete report of everything I witnessed as soon as the hearing is complete.

Share on Facebook

Mach One Aviation Inc vs witnesses

I have now had the opportunity to read the entire complaint as well as all the supporting documents. I’m sick to my stomach.

Basically Riggs is saying that because these witnesses, who watched their friend die, have ruined his business by speaking to the FAA about what happened that day.

A couple of things really caught my attention:

“Mach One Aviation, Inc was relying on said representations (the witness allegedly representing that they were filming flights and that she would adhere to all required FAA regulations governing such operations) as a condition precedent to performing its aerial motion picture services on 18 May 2012.”

I read the paperwork she signed and yes, it DOES say that she will abide by all FAA regulations (and any requirements of the FSDO) however, nowhere does it say that a movie book is required (it is) or that FAA Form 1711-A would be required (although it does list a portion of the verbage from those requirements. I have no doubt that this person would assume that means if you see a “non-authorized personnel” signs, you don’t go in, if there are rules and regulations posted or stated to you, you follow them. And as a pilot it is (in my opinion) HIS responsibility to make sure all FAA regulations are being followed. No one knows better than Riggs that you don’t just take someone at their word when they tell you they’ve done everything they are supposed to.

He also states that Mach One is well known in the movie and aviation industry as being the “premier provider of aerial filming services”. Really? Says who?

He claims they were making a movie called “Aces 2012″ They state they were celebrating a friends birthday.

He also states that one of the witnesses (Mike Smith) certified to Mach One Aviation, Inc “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States” that the nature of the flight was the making of a film production titled “Aces 2012″.

Actually what he signed was a “passenger/pilot disclosure and release”. It doesn’t say anywhere on it that he’s signing under penalty of perjury. It states that he “swears and affirms” certain things, but that’s all.

And really? Does Dave Riggs want to get into a real discussion of perjury? REALLY?

Now here’s the most interesting part. In all 40 some odd pages the ONLY time I see any of the witnesses (or paperwork) mention Mach One Aviation is when the plaintiff (Mach One) says it, and in one portion of a witness statement when it is stated that Dave Riggs handed one of them a business card that says “Mach 1 Aviation”.

ALL of the paperwork says Incredible Adventures. The release they signed releases Incredible Adventures, Dave Riggs, Doug Gillis and Nazarene Aviation Fellowship (which owns Riggs’ L-39). It doesn’t even mention Walt Woltosz who owned the plane that crashed. It doesn’t mention Mach One Aviation anywhere.

So exactly how can Mach One sue them? Don’t know.

I honestly have to wonder if there has EVER been a case of a company suing a customer for giving a statement to the FAA (or any other agency) after a tragedy that resulted in 2 deaths.

In addition, as mentioned in the Aero News article. This suit was filed yesterday. 48 hours prior to these EXACT three witnesses potentially testifying against him at the NTSB hearing regarding his revocation. Yes, I agree with sources I’ve spoken to today who think it is a REALLY bad attempt at witness intimidation. I pray the witnesses aren’t willing to be bullied.
Although I doubt the FAA would lose the case if they chose not to testify.

On a personal level I found it interesting that this filing states: “Mach One Aviation, a Nevada Corporation with it’s principal place of business in Los Angeles”. Then why is Mach One Aviation, a Nevada Corporation, suing me in Las Vegas?

Share on Facebook

David Riggs and Mach One Aviation sue the Accident Witnesses

The audacity of this jackass (I apologize for the name calling but come on…this is absolute insanity!) knows no bounds. This case is California case #EC059911

Once again it is proof positive that you NEVER want to be involved with David G. Riggs. It WILL end badly.

Aero-News Alert: David Riggs Files Suit Against Accident Witnesses

Witness Intimidation? All Three Defendants Had Provided Testimony At The Request Of The FAA/NTSB

On the eve of the NTSB hearing in which aviation con-man and bad boy, David Riggs, is expected to try and defend himself against the FAA’s Emergency Order of Revocation, ANN has learned that Riggs’ company, Mach One Aviation, has filed suit against three of the witnesses who have provided testimony to the FAA, and who may be asked to appear against him in the upcoming hearing.

The suit, ostensibly filed as a, “COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS,” was filed by LA based attorney, Paul Sweeney, who confirmed the existence of the suit but refused to provide more details until he OK’ed it with Riggs. Sweeney asked for and received the identification of ANN’s editor-In-Chief and then closed out the call.

The suit names Sandy Young, Gary Gustavson, and Mike Smith, who were all present at the site and time of the fatal accident that claimed Riggs’ associate Doug Gilliss and his passenger, 65-year-old Richard A. Winslow of Palm Desert, CA. They were there to fly with either Riggs or Gilliss. Smith, was in the other L-39, with Riggs, and watched his friend, Rick Winslow go down shortly after takeoff.

At the Boulder City accident, which took place, May 18th of 2012, witnesses said that the L39 lost power just after takeoff and went down in the desert just west of the airport. Gilliss declared an emergency just before the plane went down.

According to the NTSB Prelim, “A group of eight people had paid for a flight package. The flight was to be 45 minutes long, and at the end of the flight each passenger would be provided a film of their flight. The majority of the group was interviewed, and they stated that they were driven by bus from their hotel to BVU. Once they arrived at BVU, they made their way into BFE FBO (fixed based operator) and were told by someone at BFE that the two airplanes were en route from VNY. While they waited for the airplanes to arrive, the group discussed the order in which they would fly since only one passenger could occupy one seat in each airplane. After the airplanes arrived, the group reported seeing two people exit each airplane. The group talked to the pilots and took pictures of themselves with the airplanes. They moved inside BFE to a conference room where they received a briefing of what to expect. Members of the group indicated that there would be four flights; two flights would occur before lunch, the airplanes would be refueled, and then they would have the final two flights. The passengers did not observe any mechanical problems during the first two flights. The accident flight occurred on the third flight of the day after the lunch break.”

The report also stated that, “Mach 1 Aviation and Incredible Adventures operated the flight under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.”

The 44 page lawsuit (complaint and supporting documents) states that each of the passengers booked to fly with Riggs or Gilliss that day (via Incredible Adventures) knew that the flights were to be conducted solely for the purpose of filming. One of the individual complaints (this one against Mike Smith) alleges that, “Notwithstanding and contrary to these written representations, and in an attempt to punish MACH ONE AVIATION, INC., and to interfere with MACH ONE AVIATION, INC.’s economic relationships with its customers. Defendant MIKE SMITH made false and fraudulent statements to the FAA indicating that his purpose on 18 May 2012 was to get a ‘ride’ in an L-39 aircraft, and not to make a film production.” Similar charges are made against the other two defendants.

The suit was filed yesterday, December 10th, 2012, in an LA Superior Court — less than 48 hours before Riggs’ NTSB hearing… the timing is questionable and persons close to the case assert that there are strong and reasonable concerns that the timing and actions inherent in the suit may constitute an attempt by Riggs, via Mach One Aviation, to intimidate the witnesses who have testified against him in written statements to the FAA, and may do so in person before the NTSB.

ANN is still wading through the lengthy data contained in the documents, and is still reading the witness and investigator statements. ANN will update this story as soon as we have the opportunity to spend more time with the material provided.

In the meantime, Riggs is still scheduled to appear before NTSB Administrative Law Judge, Patrick G. Geraghty, in an NTSB Courtroom located at 1515 W. 190th Street, Suite 555, Gardena, CA 90248 starting tomorrow, December 12 and possibly continuing on through the 13th, beginning at 0930 each day.

Stay tuned… more to follow…

Share on Facebook

December 12, 2012 Revocation Hearing

A reminder that the Revocation Hearing will begin tomorrow morning at 9:30 am in Gardena. The hearing will be presided over by NTSB Law Judge Patrick G. Geraghty.

This hearing is in regards to the allegation that David G. Riggs was performing flights for pay in his L-39 against Federal Aviation Regulations that prohibit those flights. This stems from the May 18, 2012 crash of L-39 (tail number N39WT) in Boulder City Nevada which resulted in the deaths of pilot Doug Gilliss and passenger Robert A Winslow (of Palm Desert). Riggs was flying in the second plane that day (with a passenger) and witnessed the crash.

According to the NTSB report eight passengers paid for flights that day which were arranged by Incredible Adventures and Dave Riggs’ company Mach 1 Aviation. Later reports stated that the majority of passengers that day were from Canada which made the investigation take longer to be included when leading up to the Emergency Revocation of Riggs’ pilot certificate.

This should be interesting.

Share on Facebook

Paid flights in an L-39? Doesn’t sound like it was for a movie or television production to me.

You can find this post here.

Once again, paid flights in an L-39. Through Incredible Adventures. With pilots Dave Riggs and Dave LaFaille.

Share on Facebook

Update on video

Funny…the video has now been set as private. That’s okay. Copies have already gone to the proper authorities.

Share on Facebook

Fighter Combat Inc – dog fights

If there was any question of who was doing the simulated dog fights by Fighter Combat Inc. they’ve now been answered.

David Riggs – N360DR
and Dave LaFaille – N322Z

And apparently Western Flight, the FBO in Carlsbad is somehow involved. As well as “Go Pro” which is a camera company.

Watching this video, and being familiar with these planes (since they are using Lancairs and NOT the planes actually made for these types of flying) makes me physically ill.

http://vimeo.com/51224242

As you can see..this is nothing more than a thrill ride..that’s not movie or television footage. So again, it appears it wouldn’t fall under the “movie waiver” as he is claiming with the L-39 situation.

I truly hope the NTSB and FAA stand their ground against this guy before yet another person dies.

And Dave LaFaille, you got some ‘splainin to do.

Here’s another little tidbit. If that were a movie or tv production, would they allow it to be shown on YouTube, Vimeo or anywhere else prior to release? I think NOT. AND that bit of music at the beginning? It’s a song called John The Revelator. GREAT tune. That recording is by Curtis Stiger and the Forest Rangers. I know, because I’ve heard it every week for every episode of Sons of Anarchy since it’s been the theme song for Five Seasons. I’d be willing to bet that Kurt Sutter, the creator, writer, director of SOA and FX the station that broadcasts SOA haven’t given permission for their copyrighted / owned music to be used in a movie or tv production being done by Dave Riggs. The rest of the music is a band called Dirty Sweet doing a song called Rest Sniper. Rest. I bet they haven’t gotten paid either. Can you say copyright infringement?

Correction..the version of John the Revelator on that video is actually a version done by Son House. My error and I thank the reader that pointed it out!

Share on Facebook

Update on Revocation Hearing

If you go to the NTSB site to look up a hearing here it still states the hearing is the 11th and 12th of December.

However, if you check the actual letter attachment it has been changed to the 12th and 13th as we were originally told.

I’ve been told there was an error with the entry dates and the case will actually begin on the 12th of December.

Share on Facebook

Airborne 11/30/12

Dave made it on Airborne again. Ashley Hale could just about make a career reporting on this guy. And it seems that AviationCriminal.com makes a short appearance as well.

Share on Facebook

Dave Riggs Emergency Revocation Hearing

The case is now on the docket. We were told it was for the 12th & 13th but after pulling the actual docket this morning it seems someone got that wrong.

Docket SE – 19388

Michael P. Huerta
v.
David G. Riggs

The hearing is scheduled for December 11 and 12th at 9:30am

It will be held at the NTSB Courtroom 1515 W. 190th Street Suite 555 Gardena CA 90248

This is a public hearing.

You can find the posting here: NTSB Court Docket

Share on Facebook

FAA Form 7711-1 Certificate of Waiver or Authorization – Movie films and David Riggs

Since it appears, as I’ve said all along, that David Riggs is going to use his “Movie Waiver” to defend his flights in the L-39 (flights for hire) we should take a look at that and see if it holds water.

You can find a full documentation on the Form 7711-1 at this link.

Now this version is from 2008 so it’s possible there have been changes since then but based on research I’ve done there wouldn’t be anything significant.

Here is the Description of this particular waiver:

Purpose of the Motion Picture and Television Certificate of Waiver.
1) The motion picture and television industry utilize aircraft in support of their filming operations as both subject aircraft and behind the scenes aircraft. These aircraft are often required to be flown at altitudes and/or horizontal radius less then the minimums specified in §§ 91.119(b)(c) and/or 91.515(a). Additionally, these aircraft are required to perform aerobatics maneuvers below the minimum 1,500 feet above the surface as specified in §§ 91.303(e).
2) A waiver of the requirements of § 91.119(b) and (c) is necessary when aircraft must be flown closer than 500 feet from participating persons or property. If filming sequences require an aircraft to be flown in aerobatic flight below 1,500 feet above ground level (AGL), a waiver of § 91.303(e) is required. If a waiver for § 91.515(a) is needed, it will be added to the initial request and maintained as part of the original waiver. Items 1 through 8, 11, 12, and 15 on FAA Form 7711-2 must be addressed in all cases.

Now, he did a commercial awhile back for the Washington State Lottery. That would be something this would be used for. When they made Kill Speed, all of those flight scenes would have been addressed under this type of waiver.

Now one of the descriptions is:

2) Subject Aircraft. Any aircraft that is being filmed as part of a motion picture or television filming event.

Guess what? In my world (and most logical, law abiding citizen’s world) a “film” made during a thrill ride to show to friends and family or post to YouTube is NOT a motion picture or television filming event. It’s a thrill ride filmed to show to friends and family or post to YouTube.

Then we have this section:

I. Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual. Operating and safety procedures must be incorporated in a motion picture and television operations manual. The operations manual, once accepted, becomes part of the waiver. The operations manual is the standard by which a certificate holder must conduct all operations pursuant to FAA Form 7711-1 authorization. The controls, procedures, and conditions set forth in the operations manual are the primary assurance that nonparticipating persons will not be jeopardized. This will be the basis for the authorization of the motion picture and television area of operation and/or the issuance of the waiver. Therefore, failure to comply with the provisions of the operations manual shall be considered a violation of the terms of the waiver and may constitute justification for cancellation of the waiver.

Nonparticipating persons Now one could argue that the passengers are participating by buying the ticket and entering the planes. The problem with this is that we do not know if those people have been informed that the filming of their flight doesn’t fall under a movie or tv production. Nor do we know if they’ve truly been informed of the possible dangers and risks or given the tools, information and ability to remain safe. Remember, in the NTSB report the passenger in Riggs’ plane stated that he had to figure out how to put on his own safety harness. That isn’t someone who is experienced in the plane, so he’s also not, as Riggs claims, “an essential crew member to ensure safety” (paraphrased).

Next we have:

C.Persons Authorized. Title 14 CFR § 91.119(c) is waived only with respect to those participating persons, vehicles, and structures directly involved in the performance of the actual filming. The operations manual will include procedures to ensure that no persons are allowed within 500 feet of the area except those consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production. This provision may be reduced to no less than 200 feet if an equivalent level of safety can be achieved and the Administrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent level of safety may be determined by an ASI’s evaluation of the filming production area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, etc. Such barriers may protect nonparticipating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) from debris in the event of an accident.

So if I had attended the filming of Kill Speed, I would have had to be a minimum of 500 feet away from the area because I would have only been an observer. I don’t believe that a person along for a “thrill ride” is exempt from that. We must understand that they will be noted as essential because they were the subject being filmed but the question remains, is a thrill ride covered under this waiver? I’m not a lawyer, but I’d say no.

Now this paperwork goes into a lot of detail on everything that has to be done, all the regulations that need to be met, paperwork that needs to be filled out etc. I won’t get into each and every bit because I truly believe that the simple fact that these flights are NOT movie productions or television shows suffice to support the contention that these flights are illegal. Obviously a judge will be deciding that soon.

It’s been discussed countless times that there are people out there who skirt the rules by say, giving someone a ride, then charging $100 for a tshirt, or renting the headphones or any other number of things. Do I expect the FAA to bust every one of them? No of course not. The don’t have the time or the manpower. But this activity is so blatant, so flagrantly flipping the bird (so to speak) at the FAA that it must be stopped. The fact that 2 people are dead is all the proof I need of that. How about you?

Share on Facebook

Riggs’ Appeal Hearing

From Aero-News.net

According to NTSB documentation, Riggs’ Emergency challenge petition asserts that, “…the Administrator has failed to allege certain events which occurred …. which the Administrator is aware of, or should have been aware of…. [and] are entirely inconsistent with the allegations” set forth above. In this regard, he contends that a Motion Picture Manual and Waiver (“Movie Waiver”), which had been examined and accepted by the Van Nuys FSDO, “was in effect during the scheduled aerial flights,” and that he “engaged in the alleged flight activity… under the provisions and procedures of the Movie Waiver;” that he met with FSDO personnel approximately two months before the subject flights to discuss them, at which time he “fully disclosed the flights and was informed that the[y] … were in accordance with the FARs and properly within the scope of the approved Movie Waiver,” and he “would never have engaged in th[Oise] … film production flights if it [had] not been for the assistance and assurance he received while meeting with these FAA officials;” that he also filed a Plan of Activities with the Las Vegas, Nevada, FSDO in mid-April 2012, relating to the flight activity planned for May 18, 2012, which “was similar to numerous film production flights performed in the past by [him] for television networks,” but the Administrator’s order “fails to mention the fact that [he] was performing the subject flights, pursuant to the Movie Waiver, and in his capacity as a film maker;” and that the order “is also completely devoid of any facts which demonstrate [he] received any compensation. “With respect to the compensation issue, respondent has included with his petition a copy of a Passenger Pilot Disclosure and Release Form completed on May 18, 2012 by Michael Smith, whom respondent describes as “his crew member,” in which Mr. Smith “confirm[s] that [he] ha[s] not directly or indirectly paid the pilot or the aircraft owner any compensation either actual or implied for this flight,” which, respondent maintains, “debunks the concept that any compensation was paid in the first place.”

So as I thought all along..he’s going to go with the movie waiver. I’m not sure how this plays out. A movie waiver is for a movie. Or a tv production. Top Gun was a movie. A 10 minute video on Youtube of a guy in the backseat of a plane is not a movie.

And he calls Mr. Smith (the passenger in his plane) a CREWMEMBER. And has some piece of paper he signed saying he didn’t pay anything for the flight. So, either Mr. Smith paid Incredible Adventures OR he’s going to say they paid for the film production. Mr. Smith stated, as you’ll recall, that he did not know how to put on his harness. That is not a crewmember. That is a PASSENGER.

I see the ways that this could potentially get twisted around..and have since the day this site began. It’s something akin to creative accounting. That gets you put in jail too.

Share on Facebook

DENIED

Thank you Aero-News.net.

FAA Wins 1st Round: NTSB DENIES Riggs’ Attempt To Battle FAA’s Emergency Order

Story Developing… Riggs Loses First Round In Battle With FAA/NTSB

David G Riggs, quickly assuming the aura of aviation’s best known crook and con-man, has lost another battle with the Feds… this time, namely, the NTSB and the FAA.

It is a battle that could see Riggs losing his tickets for at least year and could the first in a wave of other actions that are rumored to be heading his way… not just from the FAA, but from Federal authorities investigating hundreds of reports of individual illegalities, frauds, and misconduct.

In a document completed just moments ago by the NTSB’s Alfonso J Montano, their Chief Administrative Law Judge, the Judge completed an “ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S PETITION CHALLENGING ADMINISTRATOR’S EMERGENCY DETERMINATION.”

ANN has JUST received the documents in the last few minutes and will be working through them over the next hour or so… we will have far more to report as soon as we digest the requisite info… Stay tuned…

Share on Facebook

Santa Monica Mirror picks up the story

An article was posted this morning regarding the revocation of Dave Riggs’ pilot certificate. They also touched on the fact that his probation was revoked in regards to the Santa Monica Pier incident.

Share on Facebook

Lawsuit updates

Lest we forget…along with the certificate revokation and any further issues that may arise from the Boulder City crash as well as the bankruptcy, as well as the community labor and fines that are still pending for the Santa Monica fiasco, there are also still a few lawsuits pending that Riggs is involved in.

LA Superior Court Case BC366673
KATHRYN PEASLEE VS DAVID G RIGGS ET AL
Filing Date: 02/21/2007
Case Type: Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings
07/17/2013 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference (jt 7/22/13)

07/22/2013 at 09:30 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial (FSC 7/17/13)

LA Superior Court Case BC377905
JON ZIMMERMAN ET AL VS DAVID G RIGGS ET AL
Filing Date: 09/21/2007
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings
07/17/2013 at 08:31 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference (JT 7/22/13)

07/22/2013 at 09:30 am in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial (FSC 7/17/13)

Case Number: BC432305
WRIGHT FLIGHT AVIATION INC VS DAVID G RIGGS ET AL
Filing Date: 02/22/2010
Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings
03/13/2013 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Status Conference (RE: DEFENDANTS’ BANKRUPTCY STATUS)

Case Number: BC431213
DMITRI GUZEEV ET AL VS DAVID RIGGS ET AL
Filing Date: 02/04/2010
Case Type: Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings
None

And last but not least, my case in Nevada

Clark County Civil Court case # A-12-654954-C

11/19/2012 Scheduling Order
11/20/2012 Order Setting Civil Jury Trial
09/11/2013 Status Check (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Johnson, Susan)
11/06/2013 Pretrial/Calendar Call (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Johnson, Susan)
11/18/2013 Jury Trial (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Johnson, Susan)

Share on Facebook

Emergency Revocation Appeal

According to the NTSB Dave Riggs did file a challenge to the emergency determination of the order. In other words he’s saying there wasn’t an emergency. I beg to differ.

At any rate, a law judge will rule today on that and a decision should be released tomorrow.

Should the judge rule against him then the Emergency Revocation of his pilot certificate will stand. Should the judge rule for him then a hearing will be held in Gardena CA, most likely around December 10th in front of Judge Patrick Geraghty. Judge Geraghty is the same judge who heard the appeal when his license was revoked for the Santa Monica incident.

He is also the judge who changed the revocation to a 210 day suspension. The support of the revocation was upheld in court. The change from a revocation to a 210 day suspension was reversed and the year revocation was re-instated by the Appeals Court. You can read that report here.

As for emergency revocations. There is an interesting statement that was made by Peggy Gilligan who was the Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification for the Federal Aviation Administration back in 1998. She explains, in good detail and clear English how the Emergency Revocation system works. You can read the full statement here.

I’ll share a few highlights below.

“All revocations are a remedial measure when the certificate holder lacks the necessary qualifications to hold the certificate, and the continued exercise of the privileges of the certificate in such circumstances would be contrary to safety in air commerce or air transportation. All emergency suspensions are premised on a reasonable question as to the certificate holder’s qualifications.”

“Between 1993 and 1997, the FAA initiated an average of 2.55% of its total enforcement caseload as emergency actions.” – they don’t do this lightly, unless you don’t come in and show them your ticket on demand, but that’s a different story

“From 1990 through 1997, the FAA’s action was reversed in only 2% of the emergency orders of revocation that were issued, and in less than 1% of emergency orders of suspension that were issued”

This one is very relevant to this situation:

“One criticism that is sometimes leveled at the FAA is that emergency action is often invoked for a violation that occurred several months, or in some cases, years prior to the issuance of an emergency order. Critics of the current system maintain that this lag time supports the contention that immediate suspension of a certificate is not necessary to ensure safety, given that the certificate holder often exercises the privileges of a certificate for some time after an alleged violation without incident. I would like to take a moment to respond to this position. When the FAA first detects a violation, use of emergency action is not necessarily envisioned. Only after completing the investigation do the FAA inspectors, managers, and lawyers make a determination as to whether an emergency order is warranted. Once a determination is made that there is lack of qualifications, it is the FAA’s policy to process such cases as quickly as possible, often within a few days. Even if the FAA delays issuing such orders, however, safety is not generally served by failing to take emergency action.”

In other words, just because someone else hasn’t died doesn’t mean the actions of that day were not dangerous and against regulations. And there is nothing to stop him from doing it again (as the Fighter Combat situation has CLEARLY proven).

Share on Facebook

Oh Canada

Transport Canada is the group in Canada that handles pilot’s licenses. It has been confirmed that Dave Riggs currently holds a private pilot license in Canada. One has to wonder if they will allow that license to stand, or if, when finding out the extenuating circumstances they have the ability (and intelligence) to revoke it there too.

1. He may have entered the country illegally if he did not get the aforementioned Minister’s Permit to even be in Canada.
2. He acquired the original pilot license AFTER having his pilot certificate revoked in the United States.
3. He has now had his United States pilot certificate revoked a second time.
4. He is a convicted felon and could, conceivably, be facing further charges in relation to the current situation.
5. He is a dangerous pilot who has demonstrated a flagrant disregard of the rules and regulations for flying.

It would be inconceivable to me if Canada were to just turn a blind eye. Only time will tell.

Share on Facebook

Canada and felons

As there has been discussion about the possibility of Dave Riggs possibly going to Canada to try to get his license from there to use here (again, even though he was told last time to “cease and desist”) I got curious.

This is what I found.

“Section 19(2)(a.1) of the Immigration Act of Canada states that persons convicted of an offence outside of Canada, that would be an offence under Canadian law, cannot be admitted to Canada. Criminally inadmissable persons can, however, apply for a special permission to enter Canada. This special permission is expressed by a Minister’s Permit.”

Any person living in the United States who possesses a criminal record and wishes to travel to Canada will need a Ministers Permit. This is valid up to one year. One may also apply for a Rehabilitation. This document is a permanent approval, and allows hassle free border crossing into Canada.
The Canadian Government will look at each application individually. They will consider the following factors:

1) Nature of conviction
2) Date of last conviction
3) Sentencing
4) Reasons for travel

A Ministers Permit may take up to 6 months for processing. A personal interview may be required at the port of entry nearest the applicant’s residence.

Rehabilitation allows lifetime access into Canada. This document never needs to be renewed. A Ministers Permit and Rehabilitation does not permit one to work in Canada. These approvals allow visitation for a period up to 6 months at a time.

I wonder if he has a “permanent Permit”.

Interestingly enough George Bush had to get one because he had a DUI conviction.

Share on Facebook

David Riggs gets his wings clipped

Airborne 11/20/12

Share on Facebook

Almost one year to the day.

It just occurred to me that it was almost exactly one year to the DAY that Riggs was thrown in Los Angeles County jail for a probation violation in the Santa Monica case (November 16th 2011) and the day the FAA pulled his certificate AGAIN for actions in the SAME PLANE (November 13th 2012). If that doesn’t show the pattern of his criminal behavior..well nothing does. Oh wait, this site does.

But seriously, doesn’t that just make you kind of boggle at the audacity of the man? Shows the absolute disregard for safety, for laws, for regulations.

I have no doubt he’s already filing an appeal of this revocation. I have no doubt he’s already trying to figure out how to fly anyway. Remember, last time he just went and got a Canadian license and flew on it until he got caught and was told the United States would not recognize it.

I know there is a federal statute against flying without a license that states:

Title 49 U.S. Code § 46306

Registration violations involving aircraft not providing air transportation

(a) Application.— This section applies only to aircraft not used to provide air transportation.

(b) General Criminal Penalty.— Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section, a person shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, if the person—

(1) – (6) [ommitted]

(7) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as an airman without an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity.

As for the FAA, they are not in the criminal prosecution business, but they have civil enforcement powers. They have the power to levy a civil penalty, and the failure to pay might result in the government confiscating property the non-certificated person owns to sell to pay the penalty (because we already know that Riggs doesn’t pay, but according to the bankruptcy transcripts he doesn’t own anything either, including the two planes he flies because he has one registered to a non-profit and the other to another Nevada corp). I have also heard that they are able to obtain an injunction forbidding the person from flying illegally again. Once that is done, and if the person is caught flying without a certificate again, the court could put the person in jail for civil contempt of the court order. The problem is, how much damage could he do while they get that injunction if that’s what they elected to do? I have no idea how long it would take to get that through the system.

Share on Facebook

25+ years of crime and failure – David (Dave) G. Riggs

For those just joining us. The reason this site exists is quite simply, to expose the criminal activities that have been carried on for over 20 years by ONE man, with no slowing down to be seen. The courts have been unwilling or unable to hold him accountable. The FAA has refused to hold him responsible for his dangerous (and fatal) activities. So we the public must.

Between 1985 & 1987 – opened Mokan Productions and then set up a company in Nashville called National Studio Supply that sold fictitious video equipment to Mokan Productions.
1987 – Mokan Productions deal fell apart and resulted in a 29 count indictment
1987- Riggs takes $1 million dollars (part cash part wire transfers) and goes to the Cayman Islands after allegedly destroying 8 trash bags worth of paperwork from Mokan.

1988 – Settles in South Africa under the name “Dave Rogers”
1988 – Gets arrested in Hong Kong and charged for using a false Australian passport under the name “Michael Joseph East”
Spends a year in jail in Hong Kong.
A year to the day of being jailed he is extradited back to the United States.

January 1990 – arraigned on 28 counts of bank fraud and one count of passport fraud. Sentenced to 10 years in Federal Prison. Spends time at Leavenworth and then transferred to Seagoville Prison in TX and got credit for his prison time in Hong Kong.

1993 – released from prison he heads to Atlanta. Goes to work for a video post-production company named Video Post. Fired when the owner finds out about his criminal history.

1994 – settled lawsuits and applied for parole transfer, moved to Tampa

1997 – articles appear in the Tampa Bay Business Journal detailing the suppliers, vendors and partners that he has managed to con during his 3 years in Tampa while running Digital Majik Post Productions, Inc.

2006 – V1 Cut Productions and Panopoly Pictures begins work on Succubus: Hell Bent. This is the only movie he was involved in that ever got completed.
2006 – Two pilots killed while following flight direction by Riggs while filming scenes for Succubus: Hell-Bent

2007 – Attempts to work on movies such as “Fast Glass” (which ends up not getting completed and spends years tied up in lawsuits when Riggs gets sued for fraud by the investors)
2007 – Ends up with Terry Fregley’s L-39 (one of the pilots who died in the 2006 plane crash).

2008 – “Kerosene Cowboys” (also never completed) production partnership is put together with a group of Russian investors. This movie also was never completed and resulted in lawsuits against Riggs alleging fraud.
2008 – Buzzes the Santa Monica Pier and Beach in the L-39. Charged by the city of Santa Monica with a section of the state public utilities code designed to protect life and property from careless and reckless pilots.

2009 – NTSB trial for the Santa Monica Pier incident – Riggs pilot’s certificate revoked.

2010 – Riggs tried and found guilty in the criminal trial for the Santa Monica Beach episode. Sentenced to 60 days in jail, 60 days community service (designated to be done cleaning the beach in Santa Monica) and fines and court costs. He immediately appealed.

2006 or thereabouts through NOW – videos on YouTube show he was doing flights for hire in the L-39 (both Wild Child and the one he got from Fregley) for Incredible-Adventures even though he only had a private pilot’s certificate, NOT a commercial ticket nor is he a CFI. He did get a commercial ticket in 2010 but is still not a CFI.

2010 – Files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy personally and on behalf of Afterburner Films, Inc., Kerosene Cowboys, Inc. and Mach I Aviation, Inc. Those filings stayed all the pending trials against Riggs that were scheduled for that summer pending the outcome of the bankruptcies.

2010 – Goes to China to fly in two Air Shows with 2 other pilots. Ends up cheating the promoter of the shows (according to the promoter), holds a one of a kind hot air balloon hostage for no other reason than “because he could”, allegedly attempts to steal the plane belonging to one of the pilots who went to China, and ends up with yet another lawsuit filed against him for contractual fraud.

2011 – Attempts to start the Ultimate Air Race Championship in partnership with Frederico Lapenda. That falls flat even though months are spent falsely advertising it.
2011 – In April he advertises a ride in the “Wild Child” for a auction as a fundraiser in a school in Santa Monica. This is an auction for a flight in a plane that was destroyed several years before, killing 2 pilots who were following Dave Riggs’ directions while filming for a movie. (That’s called fraud for those keeping score).
2011 – In August the appeal hearing for the Santa Monica incident was held. The appellate courts tentative ruling upheld the original conviction and jail sentence. The final written ruling is pending as of September 2, 2011.
2011 – In October the appellate court affirms the original conviction. Even during this time videos and blogs appear detailing Riggs continuing to fly people for hire in the L-39 against all known FAA regulations.
2011 – November 16th, Riggs is sent to LA County Jail on a probation violation for not completing the requirements of his sentence for the Santa Monica incident his fines were also raised from around $940 to almost $6k

2012 – May 18 a pilot and passenger both die when the L-39 they are in crashes in Boulder City Nevada. NTSB report states it was a paid flight put together by Mach One Aviation and Incredible Adventures. Dave Riggs is in the 2nd plane that day.
2012 – November – his pilot license goes away again under an EMERGENCY REVOCATION by the FAA for his part in selling the illegal flights in the L39.

Share on Facebook

Business partner?

Why are all these sites reporting that Doug Gillis was Riggs’ business partner? Did one person get the story wrong and it spread or is there something else going on..like someone trying to shift at least a part of the blame for the illegal paid flights from Riggs to Gillis? That would be about par for the course but there has never been ANYTHING to suggest that there are any partners in ANY of the Mach One, Mach 1, Mach I groups with the exception of Jerry Brockhaus who is now stated to be the owner of Mach One in Las Vegas.

Really shoddy journalism or lies?

http://avstop.com/November_2012/faa_revokes_riggs_pilots_license_after_death_business_partner_and_passenger.htm

Share on Facebook

More news links on Dave Riggs getting his pilot certificate REVOKED

Stars and Stripes

Las Vegas Review Journal

KUSI news San Diego

Times Standard

Share on Facebook

Oh REALLY? Dave Riggs speaks.

Mercury News updated.

Even now…

If he had a waiver WHY DID THEY SAY HE FLEW ILLEGALLY?

Riggs, 50, told The Associated Press that he planned to file an appeal Friday. He said the flights were being filmed and were conducted legally under a motion picture and television waiver, although he declined to discuss specifics of the filming project.

“We’ve done nothing wrong,” he said.

AND LATER..

Riggs scoffed at the characterization. “That’s ridiculous,” he said. “Safety is the No. 1 priority. We go through extensive training, extensive preparation for every single flight. What happened was a tragic accident, and after the NTSB finishes their report, I’m sure we’ll know what occurred.”

They don’t have to finish the report on what caused Gillis to crash to know that Winslow and the others never should have been in those planes. What part of that does Riggs not get?

It has been stated multiple times, by multiple people at the FAA that there is NO WAIVER that allows Riggs, Mach One, Mach 1, OR Mach I Aviation, OR Incredible Adventures do these flights legally. Yes, it’s reported he has a movie book..but a tape of a thrill ride is NOT a movie, nor is it a television show.

I commend the FAA for finally doing something but I hope they don’t stop now. Those Fighter Combat flights need to be STOPPED. I’ve received reports of Dave LaFaille (one of the UARC pilots) being seen leaving VNY with Riggs and a plane matching that description was seen in Livermore when those flights were discovered. There’s also rumors swirling that Craig Schulze (another UARC pilot) is active with it as well. It’s known that Schulze was doing flights in the L-39 when Riggs was in China in 2010, so it’s quite possible he’s involved now. The FAA HAS to follow up on that and shut it down. Money being lost by innocent victims is bad enough, the chance of them losing their lives is something else altogether.

In addition, GroupOn and Living Social were told about the dangers of these flights and have chosen to do nothing. I can’t believe there isn’t an attorney chomping at the bit somewhere to file a class action lawsuit against one or both of them (and others).

And is someone going to do something about those planes? Taking his ticket isn’t going to stop him from flying. Will they track them? Tell VNY to report if either of them (the L-39 or the Lancair) leaves the field? What happens to people with flights scheduled? Do they get cancelled and get refunds? Or do other pilots step up and take his place (is there really someone left that would be that stupid?.. no doubt). What scam does he start now?

I’m sure that he actually believes he’ll win an appeal of the revocation but since he didn’t win the one over Santa Monica I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s called a pattern..and it’s clear as day. I have no doubt the FAA has made sure that ALL their t’s are crossed and i’s are dotted. That is most likely why this took so long.

Kudos to them..now PLEASE…see this through. The lives you save may be many.

Share on Facebook

Dave Riggs “That’s ridiculous”

According to this report from the California AP News at the time of the Boulder City crash Riggs had this to say:

Riggs had a prior run-in with the FAA. His private pilot certificate was revoked in 2009 for a year, after officials said he flew a jet within feet of California’s busy Santa Monica Pier.

“You have a history of committing other violations that indicate you put your own economic gain over aviation safety,” Tsuda wrote. “You were willing to sacrifice the safety of others for your own personal financial gain by charging for flights in (the jet).”

Riggs scoffed at the characterization. “That’s ridiculous,” he said. “Safety is the No. 1 priority. We go through extensive training, extensive preparation for every single flight. What happened was a tragic accident, and after the NTSB finishes their report, I’m sure we’ll know what occurred.”

Curious? Was that after the wreck? Or today? Either way it’s a load of youknowwhat. He doesn’t train. He just flies when he wants to. And no matter how you slice it THOSE FLIGHTS BROKE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS.

End of story. There is no other argument beyond that. Period.

Share on Facebook

2nd times the charm

The LA Times has now picked up the story.

Pilot who buzzed Santa Monica Pier loses license for second time

The Mercury News has picked it up as well.

This one states (in part):

BOULDER CITY, Nev.—The Federal Aviation Administration has revoked the license of a pilot whose business partner died in a crash in Boulder City, saying he was reckless in offering tourists paid flights in an experimental aircraft less than two weeks after promising a federal inspector he wouldn’t. I don’t know that Gillis was his “business partner” and according to the letter he didn’t promise them he wouldn’t, he TOLD them he WASN’T.

The FAA on Tuesday ordered David Glen Riggs to surrender his commercial pilot license, following an investigation into the May 18 crash that killed pilot Douglas Gilliss and passenger Richard Winslow. Gilliss and Riggs were flying two aircraft in a formation.

In the order, FAA attorney Naomi Tsuda told Riggs his conduct “demonstrates a reckless disregard for the safety and property of others” and that he lacked “the degree of care, judgment, and responsibility required of the holder of any FAA issued pilot certificate.”

Efforts to reach Riggs on Friday weren’t immediately successful. SURPRISE

Investigators said a group of eight people had purchased a package that included 45-minute rides on Aero Vodochody L-39 jets and a film of the flight. Riggs had just taken off, and the aircraft piloted by Gilliss, of Solano Beach, Calif., was following when Gilliss’ jet crashed in the desert not far from the Boulder City Airport.

It also states:
In their revocation order, FAA officials said Riggs carried passengers on three flights the day of the crash, even though the jet was only licensed for air racing and exhibition.

No. It didn’t. It said that he flew outside the limitations of the aircraft. It doesn’t mention air racing anywhere.

Details.

Las Vegas Sun as well.

My News 3 in Nevada

Another Las Vegas Sun.

Share on Facebook

David Riggs pilot – Not anymore

FINALLY. Information was released today that Dave Riggs has been issued an EMERGENCY REVOCATION in regards to the crash of the L39 in Boulder City Nevada and his hand in it.

ANN is breaking the news this morning.

The Letter states 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.

****

Update

According to the Emergency Document, “Effective immediately, (Riggs’) Commercial Pilot Certificate (Number blacked out), and any other FAA issued pilot certificates you hold are hereby revoked on an emergency basis;

(b) Said certificates be surrendered immediately by mail or delivery to the Regional Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration, Post Office Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009, or at the Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California, 90250; and

(c) No application for a new airman pilot certificate shall be accepted from you, nor shall any airman pilot certificate be issued to you, for a period of one year from the date of service of this Order.

If you fail to surrender your certificates immediately, you will be subject to further legal enforcement action, including a civil penalty of up to $1,100 a day for each day you fail to surrender them.”

Again with the year. I hope there is more to follow in regards to this, the continual flights, the Fighter Combat flights, etc. Otherwise, in a year we are right back where we started because he is NOT going to stop if the opportunity presents itself.

This is the self proclaimed FAA poster boy for safety remember?

Share on Facebook