ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2861 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6602 times:
...for suspected stolen vehicle... Their "N" number previously belonged to a stolen 150. Police databases not updated when the reg was cancelled for the 150 and reissued to their 172.
Naturally the Kings, famous for their aviation training business, will help train cops to do better stops on aircraft.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5515 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6538 times:
Did one of them make a cornball joke when removed from the aircraft?
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2434 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6453 times:
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17392 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6410 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1): Did one of them make a cornball joke when removed from the aircraft?
Reports have it that it was in fact the humor police finally catching up with them.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Fly2HMO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 8123 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6162 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1): Did one of them make a cornball joke when removed from the aircraft?
Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Reports have it that it was in fact the humor police finally catching up with them
Oh man, I can't stand the couple. THE MOST annoying couple and worst teaching style. Seems like they're trying to teach kindergartners.
Why if one person has an imaginary friend they're crazy; if many people have the same imaginary friend, its religion?
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 23 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6025 times:
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 5):
Oh man, I can't stand the couple. THE MOST annoying couple and worst teaching style. Seems like they're trying to teach kindergartners.
C767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 780 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5944 times:
Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 2): Because the FAA hadn't updated its list of stolen plane registrations...
The police never bothered to confirm the report. They got the call and ran out to SBA and pointed guns at the airplane. A little homework would have found that it is not the same aircraft.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5515 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5853 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Reports have it that it was in fact the humor police finally catching up with them.
-Mir
They'll be doing some hard time for that one!
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3224 posts, RR: 39 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5683 times:
Quoting C767P (Reply 7): The police never bothered to confirm the report. They got the call and ran out to SBA and pointed guns at the airplane. A little homework would have found that it is not the same aircraft.
If the police got a call to check on an airplane in movement, and the tail number they saw came back as a possible hit through NCIC (National Crime Information Center...used to check on/confirm warrants, stolen property, missing persons, etc), they will, and in my opinion did, the appropriate thing and hold/detain those in possession until their teletype operator can run the stolen-vehicle confirmation process through the entering agency. Whether or not the aircraft type assigned to the stolen N# (C150) and the actual aircraft in person (C172) were a match is irrelevant. Case and point:
An officer spots a license plate assigned to a stolen vehicle on one make/model (Malibu), yet the plate in question is attached to an F-150. Is it not reasonable for the officer to believe there is a possibility the F-150 may also be stolen until he/she can hold/detain the occupants, run the F-150's VIN for a hit, and confirm the wanted status of the plate? Maybe the plate was, in fact, in legal possession of the occupants of the F-150 and should have been previously canceled out of the system...Perhaps it was a recovered dealer plate on a previously-stolen vehicle off the lot, and the F-150 was now on a test drive with said plate. But the officers won't know that until they can make all the necessary runs/confirmations. And they won't know the occupants of this 172 were or were not in possession of a stolen aircraft using an unrelated stolen N# from a C150...perhaps while armed...until they can detain & confirm.
I'd say based on the circumstances, the Santa Barbara Police did an excellent job in not escalating a situation any further than it needed to go, and used their best judgment in the midst of unfamiliar, yet parallel circumstances.
[Edited 2010-09-02 13:57:02]
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
jkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 609 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5538 times:
Quoting C767P (Reply 7): The police never bothered to confirm the report. They got the call and ran out to SBA and pointed guns at the airplane. A little homework would have found that it is not the same aircraft.
Ok, so lets say the pilots were not the Kings but real terrorists or drug dealers in a stolen plane. The police were given information that it is a stolen aircraft, because the tail number (much like the license plate of a car) was showing the aircraft it belonged to was listed as stolen. Do you really expect the cops to just walk up like Barney Fife and kindly ask them to step out until we check some things? I wouldn't. The cops handled it correctly and in the end things were cleared up. It's an unfortunate incident, but the FAA should be getting the blame here, not the cops.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2861 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5527 times:
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 9): An officer spots a license plate assigned to a stolen vehicle on one make/model (Malibu), yet the plate in question is attached to an F-150. Is it not reasonable for the officer to believe there is a possibility the F-150 may also be stolen until he/she can hold/detain the occupants, run the F-150's VIN for a hit, and confirm the wanted status of the plate? Maybe the plate was, in fact, in legal possession of the occupants of the F-150 and should have been previously canceled out of the system...Perhaps it was a recovered dealer plate on a previously-stolen vehicle off the lot, and the F-150 was now on a test drive with said plate. But the officers won't know that until they can make all the necessary runs/confirmations. And they won't know the occupants of this 172 were or were not in possession of a stolen aircraft using an unrelated stolen N# from a C150...perhaps while armed...until they can detain & confirm.
Yes but the trouble is this was the second time this had happened to this particular aircraft and it all should have been cleared up after the Cessna pilot had trouble delivering the aircraft to Cessna HQ:
In this case, the N-number (N-50545) was cancelled on the 150 in 2005 and reassigned to the Cessna-owned 172 in 2009. On the aircraft's first flight, from the factory to company headquarters in Wichita in late 2009, the company pilot was met by police who had been alerted by the El Paso Intelligence Center, a multi-agency intel unit that specializes in gathering data on drug dealers and smugglers. The incident with the Kings was a repeat of that scenario.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3224 posts, RR: 39 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5409 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 11):
Yes but the trouble is this was the second time this had happened to this particular aircraft and it all should have been cleared up after the Cessna pilot had trouble delivering the aircraft to Cessna HQ:
...Which lies squarely on the FAA for not canceling the N# from the NCIC/FBI database. Santa Barbara was just doing its job: Locate, check for an NCIC hit, detain, confirm stolen through the entering agency. The entering agency could not confirm stolen, therefore the Kings and the aircraft were released.
Unfortunately, NCIC hits are only as good as entering agencies maintain as valid; It is the responsibility of the entering agency to periodically ensure the information entered is current and correct. But this is why the hit confirmation process exists before a formal arrest...To prevent improper arrests based on unconfirmed/erroneous data.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
C767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 780 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5368 times:
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 9): An officer spots a license plate assigned to a stolen vehicle on one make/model (Malibu), yet the plate in question is attached to an F-150. Is it not reasonable for the officer to believe there is a possibility the F-150 may also be stolen until he/she can hold/detain the occupants, run the F-150's VIN for a hit, and confirm the wanted status of the plate? Maybe the plate was, in fact, in legal possession of the occupants of the F-150 and should have been previously canceled out of the system...Perhaps it was a recovered dealer plate on a previously-stolen vehicle off the lot, and the F-150 was now on a test drive with said plate. But the officers won't know that until they can make all the necessary runs/confirmations. And they won't know the occupants of this 172 were or were not in possession of a stolen aircraft using an unrelated stolen N# from a C150...perhaps while armed...until they can detain & confirm.
Quoting jkudall (Reply 10): Ok, so lets say the pilots were not the Kings but real terrorists or drug dealers in a stolen plane. The police were given information that it is a stolen aircraft, because the tail number (much like the license plate of a car) was showing the aircraft it belonged to was listed as stolen. Do you really expect the cops to just walk up like Barney Fife and kindly ask them to step out until we check some things? I wouldn't. The cops handled it correctly and in the end things were cleared up. It's an unfortunate incident, but the FAA should be getting the blame here, not the cops.
The Kings were on an IFR flight plan. They filed IFR, giving their name, phone number, destination and ETA. Is this how someone who steals an airplane acts?
Of course, the Santa Barbara Police would have no idea about any of this, as they just rushed to the airport and threatened to shoot them.
The fact that this is the second time this happened to this aircraft says a lot.
The fact is the police could have handled this much differently. I hope that the fact that this happened to the Kings will help change things so it is less likely to happen to others in the future.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3224 posts, RR: 39 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5326 times:
Quoting C767P (Reply 13): The Kings were on an IFR flight plan. They filed IFR, giving their name, phone number, destination and ETA. Is this how someone who steals an airplane acts?
My mother could pick up a phone and file an IFR flight plan. It's not rocket science. But it could, theoretically, be a deterrent to suspicion.
Quoting C767P (Reply 13): Of course, the Santa Barbara Police would have no idea about any of this
Most likely, this is true. But it would add nothing to the fact that they could be dealing with potentially armed criminals looking to steal a six-figure piece of property, and approach the situation accordingly...Regardless of whose name they gave or what phone number they listed.
Quoting C767P (Reply 13): The fact that this is the second time this happened to this aircraft says a lot
...about FAA record-keeping.
Quoting C767P (Reply 13): The fact is the police could have handled this much differently.
True, as jkudall put what they could have done:
Quoting jkudall (Reply 10): lets say the pilots were not the Kings but real terrorists or drug dealers in a stolen plane. The police were given information that it is a stolen aircraft, because the tail number (much like the license plate of a car) was showing the aircraft it belonged to was listed as stolen. Do you really expect the cops to just walk up like Barney Fife and kindly ask them to step out until we check some things?
Yes, really?
Quoting C767P (Reply 13): I hope that the fact that this happened to the Kings will help change things so it is less likely to happen to others in the future.
Indeed, I hope the FAA maintains and validates their records more closely. Quoting jkudall again:
Quoting jkudall (Reply 10): The cops handled it correctly and in the end things were cleared up. It's an unfortunate incident, but the FAA should be getting the blame here, not the cops.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 13 Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5260 times:
The idea of John and Martha King as criminals or terrorists. Why does that make me laugh out loud?
A Martha King mug shot. Now that would be HOT.
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5542 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5217 times:
Regarding whether or not the police handled it correctly, allow me to quote what John King had to say. It sounds reasonable to me:
Quote: Once on the ground at an airport, they will announce on the radio their destination on the airport. They will taxi to the FBO, and if it is a 172, like we were flying, they will usually be directed to a remote parking spot. The pilot then will tie the airplane down, lock the doors, and walk away from the airplane. The police can then simply walk up to the occupants and talk to them without fear of their attempting to flee. Once the airplane is parked, there is no way to go anywhere. They don’t even have access to a car yet. The suspects will have immobilized themselves.
If, on the other hand, the police set up an interception in a remote area instead of at the FBO, any truly guilty suspect would most likely spot the police cars, as we did, before they pulled into the parking area, realize what is happening, and simply take off from the taxiway before the interception took place. This remote interception procedure only results in abusing the compliant innocent while giving the guilty the opportunity to flee.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8177 posts, RR: 16 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5200 times:
aa43e From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5165 times:
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 9): An officer spots a license plate assigned to a stolen vehicle on one make/model (Malibu), yet the plate in question is attached to an F-150. Is it not reasonable for the officer to believe there is a possibility the F-150 may also be stolen until he/she can hold/detain the occupants, run the F-150's VIN for a hit, and confirm the wanted status of the plate?
In this case the difference is that an N number can't simply be taken off one aircraft and casually affixed to another. The sticking point is law enforcements failure to do basic research. The stolen aircraft was a 150, not a 172. This is something that could have been figured out with a little research before the plane landed.
Fly2HMO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 8123 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5134 times:
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 6): Come on, now. That Martha's a handsome woman.
Why if one person has an imaginary friend they're crazy; if many people have the same imaginary friend, its religion?
jkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 609 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5027 times:
Quoting C767P (Reply 13): The Kings were on an IFR flight plan. They filed IFR, giving their name, phone number, destination and ETA. Is this how someone who steals an airplane acts?
Of course, the Santa Barbara Police would have no idea about any of this, as they just rushed to the airport and threatened to shoot them.
The fact that this is the second time this happened to this aircraft says a lot.
The fact is the police could have handled this much differently. I hope that the fact that this happened to the Kings will help change things so it is less likely to happen to others in the future.
First of all, I missed the part where they were threatening to shoot them. Their guns were drawn, naturally. But I don't recall anything about them threatening to shoot the Kings.
How would you like them to handle it? The large majority of the population has absolutely no clue about how police work is, let alone officer safety. And I am not going to go on and on about it because that topic alone could go on and on and on. I wouldn't hold that against any lay person who doesn't understand police work. The public sees the pictures of cops pointing guns at who turn out to be innocent people and they jump to the conclusion that the police were in the wrong and they shouldn't have done that. But they handled it exactly as almost any law enforcement agency would have if they were dispatched to a call with the same information. I am not going to argue with anyone who holds a different opinion, because it is almost impossible to show someone what law enforcement and officer safety is really like unless they are actually in it. So lets just agree to disagree.
Quoting C767P (Reply 13): The Kings were on an IFR flight plan. They filed IFR, giving their name, phone number, destination and ETA. Is this how someone who steals an airplane acts?
Sure, why not? I am sure there are many drug smugglers out there using their real identity and information when filing flight plans who do it to deter any suspicion of what they are doing and are able to get away with their crimes because of it. And who is to say someone would file a flight plan with their real name and information?
The thing is the cops DIDN'T know for sure the plane was not stolen and that they weren't terrorists or drug smugglers or whatever. But with the information they had at the time, they handled it appropriately by using a high-risk type traffic stop and taking them out at gunpoint. You can always sort it out afterwards, after any threat has been dealt with. Yeah, it makes the cops look bad, but the bottom line is they get to go home safely at the end of the day.
jkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 609 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4957 times:
In this case the difference is that an N number can't simply be taken off one aircraft and casually affixed to another. The sticking point is law enforcements failure to do basic research. The stolen aircraft was a 150, not a 172. This is something that could have been figured out with a little research before the plane landed.
What difference would it make when you are first confronting potentially dangerous suspects? The plane was listed as stolen regardless. Someone could have just as easily listed the type of aircraft stolen a cessna 150 when in fact it was a cessna 172 just like it was a mistake it was listed as stolen in the first place (or at least, not removed from a list of stolen planes).
GeneralAviator From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4123 times:
In my opinion the officers followed their training. Safety first.
If the police department checked the number with the FAA or NCIC or whatever agency verifies stolen planes, I do not think it is unreasonable for officers to take a government agency at its word when they are told that a plane is stolen either by direct communication or hit confirmation (NCIC). Time is of the essence and without good reason officers should not be expected to second guess information coming from official sources. The agency providing the confirmation should be held responsible to be sure that the information is correct. In this case, as I understand it, (as described by Mrs. King in the podcast) a private intelligence agency reported the plane as matching their data base as stolen. My opinion is the agency would have verified this information, coming from a reliable source, with an official government agency prior to dispatching the officers, but I could be wrong. It is not really clear how much time there was or how much information was actually available to the police agency prior to the officers being dispatched. All that being said, the officers were dispatched by their agency. If the police agency told their own officers that the plane was confirmed stolen the officers would have no reason to believe otherwise. Second guessing that kind of information, without cause, from an official source is not a reasonable expectation.
I don't think that police officers who might not be familiar with aviation would even consider a tail number being reassigned.
Example: The DOT would not reassign a license plate number that belongs to a stolen car without it being cleared. At least I have never heard of it happening. It just doesn't cross an officer's mind because it doesn't happen. The agency providing the confirmation is responsible for making sure the information is correct. I have heard of vehicles that were once stolen but recovered later being stopped because the plates were not cleared from NCIC for some reason, but this is extremely rare.
In my opinion having weapons drawn and at the "challenge" or "ready" positions would have been prudent given the information the officers had. There are many unknowns when dealing with people that you believe are in the act of committing a felony.
One example as to why officers should have their weapons drawn in a situation like this is the fact that a person can decide to shoot you with a gun they already have out (that you can't see) before you can unholster your weapon. An edged weapon attack can be quicker than an officer's draw. Google "Tueller Drill" to learn more. It is almost impossible for an officer to shoot first if a suspect decides shoot at the officer unexpectedly. The officer's brain must first perceive the action and then send a message to the hand to draw and shoot. This is why officers must be ready for anything. Having guns drawn in many situations may not be a pretty sight to the untrained eye, but to the officer it means they have a better chance of going home should things go south.
The stop, as Mrs. King described it, was perfect. A high risk stop (in summary) = initial tactics (described in procedure), initial instructions from cover, removal of the occupants, control of the occupants, taking of the occupants into custody, and clearing of the vehicle. Google "High risk traffic stop procedure." This information is no secret. If you listen to Mrs. King's account of the incident and compare it to the aforementioned procedure you will see how perfectly these officers followed the procedure. It sounds like the stop was flawless.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3715 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3580 times:
I'm gonna say this for most of the replies:
Go on a ride along with your local police department. The cops who actually pulled the plane over did the best they could with the training and information they were given.
Now:
Quoting C767P (Reply 13):
Of course, the Santa Barbara Police would have no idea about any of this, as they just rushed to the airport and threatened to shoot them.
Are you for real? Threatening to shoot????
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 11):
Yes but the trouble is this was the second time this had happened to this particular aircraft and it all should have been cleared up after the Cessna pilot had trouble delivering the aircraft to Cessna HQ:
This is the real cock-up. The fact that a CIA front (El Paso Information Center) can't even be bothered to do a 10 second search on an airplane registration before calling in the cavalry. But such is the nature of our "intelligence" agencies for the last 15-20 years.
I'm glad to see that there's finally going to be a push to educate local law enforcement on the intricacies of aviation.
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2434 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3566 times:
Would it be very restrictive for the FAA to "retire" the registration of stolen aircraft so that the registration always remains hot and issues such as this do not occur again?
How often is an aircraft stolen anyway? If a wrong arrest based on a double-identity registration is very rare, might as well not do anything either. Just because there is a solution doesn't mean it should be implemented.
I've got $h*t to do
25 pliersinsight: New one liners for future King videos: "Cops are there...hands in the air" "See badge and gun, pull the mixture - you're done" "Intercepted and done,
26 Gulfstream650: [img[http://www.avweb.com/newspics/galleries/marthaking-securitymistake/large/03.jpg[/img] I hear you but in all fairness to them, they do a good job
27 KaiGywer: No, you need two shades of paint....one to cover up the old reg, one to apply the new reg....
28 ZANL188: Look at it from the Kings point of view: it shouldn't have happened at all....
29 ZANL188: Although I'm sure the cops executed the stop as trained, I find it unlikely that the Kings thought the stop was "perfect" or "flawless". Wrong people
30 skyharborshome: I bet Shawn and Gus knew and were shaking their heads with disappointment when the SB police actually checked the records. I only expect a few of you
31 C767P: I can only agree with John and what he said in the AOPA interview…guns drawn for a long period of time increases the chance that someone slips. The
32 KELPkid: That doesn't look like Jules hauling of Martha King in cuffs, though
33 Mir: Ouch. Careful, or else the humor police might come for you as well. -Mir
34 GeneralAviator: In response to the above, and in addition to my previous post: What I said was "The stop, as Mrs. King described it, was perfect." I did not say Mrs.
35 Braniff722: Sorry, couldn't help myself. Braniff722
36 ZANL188: Makes me wonder though.. If this can happen to the Kings it can happen to anybody... and how often does this kind of thing occur when we don't hear a
37 KFLLCFII: Of course not, considering this was the second time it happened with this aircraft. (It should not have even happened to the delivery pilot!) I'm sor
38 pliersinsight: I just referenced that same movie scene to a CFII the other day who had no knowledge of it. Hopefully homework was done and the moview watched. The o
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2861 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 2813 posts, 
They'll be doing some hard time for that one! 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5542 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
