A judge in New Zealand has theoretically clipped a rebel 76-year-old pilot’s wings for good after determining that his long history flouting the regs makes it unlikely he’ll change his ways. According to Stuff, Judge Chris Tuohy of the Wellington District Court said the litany of half-baked defenses Lindsay McNicol had offered for a decades-long history of ignoring the country’s medical certification and currency requirements gave him “no reason whatever to think that Mr. McNicol’s attitude or behavior has changed or will change in the future. It is an entrenched pattern going back almost 30 years.” He upheld the revocation of McNicol’s license by a federal authorities.
McNicol’s license was suspended in 2019 after someone tipped the Civil Aviation Authority that he had flown a round trip to a nearby town when neither he nor his Yeoman Cropmaster were legal to fly. When investigators dug into his 50 years in the cockpit, they found he hadn’t had a BFR since 1996 and didn’t have a current medical. They also found out that Australian officials had convicted him 37 times for flying without a license. The CAA revoked his license in 2020 and fined him $3900. McNicol appealed through the courts and argued that he’d flown safely for decades and had been “too busy” to get a medical. Tuohy was having none of it and said he didn’t trust McNicol to change his behavior. “He is now 76, not an age where attitudinal change can be expected.”
Hey, his freedom to fly!
If the laws are similar there at least he is still free to fly ultralights.
Indeed he can still fly but will only run into more legal issues of increasing severity.
It’s like the sign says ‘NO U TURN’
Of course I can do a U turn. My car turns. It’s just not legal and maybe not safe or fair to others but it can be done.
With consequences.
It’s not a matter of freedom. It’s a matter of setting precedent and sticking to the regs. Don’t like the regs? Then change them. Otherwise anyone flies instrument in imc with just a ppl- yeah, freedom!!
Can’t agree more.
I know Regulations are set for a reason, but let’s look at Harrison Ford, he’s crashed his planes over 10 times in the last 7 years and he’s not been sanctioned by the FAA.
Sounds slanderous – can you document where or when those eleven (or more) crashes occurred?
I’ll bet he’s the life and soul of his flying club’s evenings. I’d love to have a drink with him – probably a lot more entertaining than some of the curmudgeons lurking in those hallowed halls.
Have a drink with him, sure. Fly with him? Not a chance, not even as an instructor (he seems like the kind of guy who would fight me for the controls).
Sounds like you have more faith in a certificate than in a pilot’s actual flying record. If he does have thirty years of safe flying in a crop duster, I wouldn’t hesitate to jump aboard.
I very much do consider his flying record, and have known others similar to him. “Safe” just means they haven’t crashed (yet), but they are still scary to fly with. And in my experience, pilots who willfully ignore the regs (as opposed to unintentionally violating paperwork regs) are also less likely to accept criticism of their flying and actively fight against another taking the controls.
I agree with you Gary.
It’s not the paperwork here, it’s the hazardous attitude. Doesn’t apply to me, anti-authority etc. I would never get in a plane with this guy. We don’t know how many close calls he’s had. Many pilots are just lucky. He’s an idiot
If he would be ‘scary to fly with,’ based entirely on your assumptions and fear, then I would advise do keep to your illusion of security. You’re not ready for prime time quite yet.
Liberty is in short supply in the world these days. I’m with you Rush. The evidence kinda proves the point that paper certificates weren’t the things keeping him safely in the air.
In fairness he crashed less than the many legal pilots who have biffed their airplanes over the years. I don’t know how much he flew, but he went many years intact.
Hmm … when I was younger, I would have been aghast that someone would fly – or drive – without license by the government. I mean, that’s illegal, right?
(Not to condone Wikipedia, but, at this time, someone has it correct there, saying that, technically, pilots are not ‘licensed.’ We are “certified.” The subtlety being, our ‘certificates’ can be revoked by administrative action.)
But now that I’m older, two points:
1) Ultralight pilots can fly without license.
While not an apples to apples comparison to McNicol’s situation (since McNicol’s flew a passenger and flew to a public airport), it shows that, fundamentally, one does not need permission from the govt to fly. (I could cite the Wright brothers too.)
So if Mr. McNicol had taken off solo from his own property, stayed over it and landed on it, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. (Even in a production plane, even if it hadn’t been inspected in 20 years.)
I’ve heard that many farmers/ranchers do exactly this. And I’m okay with it.
2) What if it’s an act of Civil Disobedience?
While Mr. McNicol didn’t make a legal/political argument as a defense for not complying with the authorities (being “too busy” is not good cause for challenging a rule), if he had given valid grounds for not complying, I might agree with him.
For example, I know someone who drives without a renewed driver’s license. He knows (from GAO Reports) that his state is now taking high resolution photos of applicants, performing face scans, and sharing biometric data with the feds. He thinks that’s a violation of the 4th Amdt. And so he won’t renew his license. Does that mean he’s not safe to drive anymore?
(After his license expired, he took a Refresher Driving Course with a Certified school. H says that his FAA medical proves that his eyes are safe for driving. So he says that he is in “substantial compliance” with licensing law.)
If the FAA starts requiring photos on our Certificates, I won’t apply for a new Certificate. Will I suddenly be a less-safe pilot if the govt revokes my Certificate because I won’t let the feds scan my face?
“…since McNicol’s flew a passenger”
Did he? Maybe on another occasion, but not this time. The flight he got busted for was in a single seat crop duster.
80% of automobile accident are caused by licensed drivers:
https://usclaims.com/educational-resources/non-licensed-drivers-responsible-for-20-percent-of-all-auto-accidents/amp/
80% are caused by licensed drivers, which we get from the statement that 20% are cause by unlicensed drivers. But the article states that only 3% of drivers are unlicensed. So the unlicensed are 6-7% more likely than licensed drivers to cause accidents. This could be expected, since unlicensed drivers are more likely to be scofflaws, untrained, etc. I’ve known some unlicensed drivers who don’t have one because it has been revoked because they drive so bad. No surprises. here.
As you say, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. If he was flying an ultralight, or flying only to/from his own property (presumably in NZ’s equivalent of Class-G airspace), I wouldn’t particularly see that as a problem.
And also as you mentioned, his only excuse was he was “too busy”. In other words, he knew he wasn’t complying with the rules simply because he didn’t feel like it, as opposed to making some sort of civil disobedience statement.
Uh…hate to tell you Gary, but you already have to posses and carry Gummit-issued photo ID to exercise the privileges of your pilot certificate. (CFR 61.3)
Pilots are not certified as you said.
They are certificated. The FAA does not and never has certified pilots or flight instructors.
I guess it’s only a matter of time before another news item confirms if a court order saying He Can’t means He Won’t.
Seriously, what is wrong with us today? Why are we treating this like ‘big bad government is being mean to the old guy’ when what they did was correct.
When you live in a society, be it the greater one or the subset of aviation there is an agreement to live by the rules of that society. We accept this, because without rules or honoring them we then live in chaos. The question here is not can he operate an aircraft; it is “does he have the judgement to operate it?” and he has repeatedly shown he does not.
Even the notion of him flying inside his own property is bad, since if he did have an accident no doubt the family or someone would sue the aircraft manufacturer and any one associated with aviation (talk to the family who sued Beech for a pilot who took off in an airplane that had not been flown in over 10 years with a rotting wing spar…and they won).
Why do we even tacitly applaud this man? Be cause he’s old? So if a 30 something did this it’s throw the book or again, do we not care about structure.
There are reasons for the structure that we live by in aviation. Maybe at times they seem overkill, but if that was the case, get them changed. Prove the Government wrong otherwise breaking it “just because” may put others in danger. Some pilot could say “Why contact ATC flying into Class B, it’s my airspace, muh freedom, so just let me fly on through, those jets will get out of my way”…oh wait, some have and they put not just other pilots, but passengers at risk.
We do checklists, we follow procedures, we perform within regulations, because at the end of the day, just getting into an airplane is risk enough. Why compound it.
I’m inactive now, but when I flew, just the mere fact of being above the ground put me in such a small community of people that following “the rules” did not bother me at all. Being above the ground was Joy. It was a privilege, not a right, a privilege I earned, but also one granted. Yes, the government can take away my access to the sky if I F up the rules enough. it is not my ability, but my judgement that is in question. A lack of ability will just kill you.
I am glad they tossed him out of this club. His actions diminished what it means to me to be a pilot. I would not want to have a drink with him when there are so many other pilots, pilots that understood the responsibility they choose, that I am sure could tell me amazing stories, like what happens when you stall a DC-8 at cruise altitude over top a thunder storm and drop thousands of feet before recovery. Did not break procedure of rule, but not the best judgement. Didn’t try that again was the comment to me.
There are times when we screw up. The good one’s learn from it and become better, then there are people like this man who don’t and while he was lucky, there are others that were or are not. If you don’t like rules. get enough people to change them otherwise pull up your big boy pants and follow them or please, find a different club to play in.
Bravo! Thank you for differentiating judgement from skill. And acknowledging that we all are parts of the communities we live in. Humans require communities to live in, we’re hard wired for that. And to succeed we need each other to rely on. When communities expand to the point where anonymity becomes the norm, humans codified the rules. Teenagers learn about this as they mature and graduate to become adult members, which means they fulfill their obligations to the community. Adult rebels are a developmental throwback to stages of earlier development, and depending on the degree of the rebellion, are merely tolerated or punished. The latter category of response is typically reserved for persons called criminals.
This guy in NZ is not functioning as an adult. He may have the skills needed to pilot an aircraft, but he has yet to develop the skills to think like an adult. Probably his best option, if he were motivated, would be to find an empathic psychotherapist to guide him through, what at this point, will be a lifelong series of habits based upon entrenched beliefs that, obviously, are not serving his best interests at the current time.
Seems a bit silly to require a medical or aircraft inspection of any type when someone flys alone.
Cars and people in cars can and do cause more damage to others and they don’t get inspected.
In most states you don’t even need to show up for your ‘license’… it is just a cash pot for governments now. You really shouldn’t need any more ID then a person walking down the sidewalk.
Leave him alone.
Then change the reg. And don’t just bust the rule
Seems like previous attempts to ground this guy haven’t worked. Take away is license (certificate, piece of paper, whatever) doesn’t work. Convicted him 37 times? I’m sure the 38th time will work. The only reason governments license/certificate/give you a piece of paper is so they have the power to revoke it. Guess they will have to throw him in jail
What about his insurance? I’m sure he has no coverage. Then craters into someone’s house, kills someone and no recourse but jail time for him. We shouldn’t be making this guy like a ‘rebel’ or other romanticized persona. He’s a liability to society.
Government excels in ADDING regulation–My 1959s and 1960s copies of the FARs are far thinner than today–but regulation doesn’t always equate to safety.
People (including pilots) wailed that “unregulated”‘ ultralights would be dangerous–that hasn’t proven to be true. The same thing with BasicMed non-medicals–also not true. Balloon pilots haven’t had to have medicals–I can’t think of a single case of pilot incapacitation. The FAA has increasing regulations on aircraft maintenance and repair–enough so that many pilots have resorted to the extreme position of BUILDING THEIR OWN AIRPLANE to be rid of over-regulation (imagine having to BUILD YOUR OWN CAR?)–and those airplanes have been safe. FAA insisted that jets couldn’t be flown single pilot (though the military had been doing it for years–but we can now fly jets single pilot–and the insurance companies (who lose in the event of a crash) have little difference in premiums.
Pilots in Alaska, northern Canada, and remote areas like the one in question operate and maintain their own aircraft out of necessity–often outside of government regulation. That hasn’t increased accidents–in fact, Canada has allowed owner-maintained non-commercial aircraft for years.
The auto-response by Government to any perceived problem is “Let’s make a law against it”–a “feel-good”–“we DID something” answer at best. I keep those old FAR books on a shelf above my desk–just to remind me that MORE RULES ARE RARELY THE ANSWER. HOW ABOUT A GOVERNMENT COMMISSION TO SEE WHICH RULES CAN BE ELIMINATED?
Great comment, Jim. We’ve become very comfortable in our slavery.
Alaska has the worst GA accident rate in the country.
AK likely also has the most dangerous geography and climate in the country for flying. And the highest pressure to complete missions for things such as health care and food/medical supplies.
True–but then, they don’t have the infrastructure we have in the “Lower 48”. The airports may not even be airports–it could be snow, lakes, bogs. They don’t have weather reporting every few miles, like we have in the “Lower 48”.
Do you think that MORE RULES would help lower the accident rate there? I don’t think so EITHER! Just as crop dusting is more hazardous than pleasure flying–the same can be said for operations in sparsely populated areas, with long distances between airports. William makes a good point about “pressure to complete missions”–and not just for a paycheck–“not making it home tonight” may mean spending some time out in the bush, waiting for the weather to clear–THAT’S PRESSURE. Does anyone think that making MORE rules would help????
Wouldn’t it be fun to institute trial changes in the FARs–much like the reduction in medical rules turned out not to be a big impact? How about trying Canada’s “owner flown/non-commercial maintenance”? It’s worked for them–and it’s worked for owner-flown ultralight and LSAs. Those experiences put the lie to “more rules are better.” It could even be said that MORE RULES CAUSE ACCIDENTS–how many times has a pilot run out of fuel because the pilot was afraid of operating over gross–and cut fuel to be “legal”? How many times has a pilot not taken a medical exam because they were afraid they may not pass–instead of getting prompt treatment? How many times has a pilot passed up a “Big” airport within range to go on to a small airport, because he didn’t want to “get into the hassle” of the “big” airport? How many times have you seen a pilot deviate offshore beyond safe glide range of land because he didn’t want to have to “participate” in a Class B radio exchange. How many times have you seen pilots quit flying, because they were afraid of inadvertently breaking FAA rules?
In my 59 years of flying and 54 years in the FBO business, I’ve seen all of these–and more. How bad does the threat have to be that a pilot would rather take a chance on killing himself and passengers rather than explain why he broke “the rules”?
Instead of the incessant “MORE RULES”–I’d like to see an industry/FAA movement to see which rules can be safely modified or eliminated. Does anyone really think that all of the FAA rules are required? How about starting an online conversation–“WHICH FAA RULES DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE ELIMINATED?”
“McNicol’s license was suspended in 2019 after someone tipped the Civil Aviation Authority…”
Which is it, fellow readers, a snitch or a concerned citizen? Evidently from the comments the rat was given legitimate stature – do we need more rats and meddlers, or are they ‘concerned citizens’ to keep us, our children and everyone in the whole wide world safe? Oh, the worry…
Now if you’ll excuse me, there are 5, maybe six pilots I know of who need some behavior modification (Just look at me, I’m your savior! You’ll thank me when it’s over…) thru legal intervention that I can use my freedom to tell the authorities about that I’ve got to get to at my airport. No time to waste! They’ll learn to not break the rules thru my intervention, dammit – not on my watch!
Funny and not funny.
With his record, the only way to keep him from flying it is to take away his airplane or access to it or others. What makes the judge think that his prohibition will be any more recognized by LM than all the other rules, rulings and regs that have been ignored?
I doubt this pilot really cares about his cert, and ya gotta wonder if the court really cares either after all this time. Making it “official” by pulling his cert just seems like “the least we could do” by the government. The gov would look kinda silly, if they knew about this dude who apparently has no intention of ever complying, and just let it slide.
As to safety/judgement/staying legit etc……let us remember that not everyone puts the same weight of significance into the same rules. I can name several areas of federal regulation that most of the US population ignores or winks at, probably including most pilots. If BFRs and medical certs end up being seen by someone as little more than “checking a box”, so to speak, it’s easy to see how a reasonable, rational person who just putt-putts around by himself, in his own plane, on short local hops in the country, might come to view this regulatory housekeeping with so little importance that he just never gets around to it.
I’m not saying this is a reasonable excuse. It’s just something to keep in mind while sitting cozy on your moral high ground and castigating the scofflaws.
Well put.
Agree on a lot of what you say. For me it’s not about the paper or regs and I’m not holier than thou. It’s about hazardous attitudes and flouncing the rules in general as it applies to safely operating aircraft. Not to mention the bad press GA should avoid. Hazardous attitudes is what leads people to fly under bridges and the ensuing commentary is just as divided and no different than in this case. Until someone does try something stupid like that and actually kills somebody.
Agree on a lot of what you say. For me it’s not about the regulations and I’m not holier than thou. It’s about hazardous attitudes and flouncing the rules in general as it applies to safely operating aircraft. Not to mention the bad press GA should avoid. Hazardous attitudes is what leads people to fly under bridges and the ensuing commentary is just as divided and no different than in this case. Until someone does try something stupid like that and actually kills somebody.
Seems like about half of the comments basically advocate for doing away with licenses and aircraft registration / inspections.
I’ve been a pilot since 1981 and have never really thought the requirements to be that huge of a burden. I have to get my medical every year now (2nd Class) and completely understand why. I am freaking old.
Why should this old jack azz be treated any differently than those that comply with the law?
Do what you want, just be prepared to suffer the consequences.
I have a feeling that there are many other laws and regulations that this guy does not comply with – probably not just flying regs.