From: Gary Hunt at the Outpost of Freedom in Andrews, North Carolina

Date: February 3, 1994 Phone: messages (407) 644-xxxx


Based upon the recommendation of Mr. Ray Eastman, Director, Special Services, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, I filed a complaint on behalf of Betty Lou Hanson Smith yesterday. Mr. Eastman made it very clear that the only way I would be able to get answers to questions I had asked would be if a complaint were filed. Mr. Eastman, thank you for the advice!

I contacted the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) office in Charlotte, North Carolina to begin the process. The lady that took my call seemed to be a bit reluctant to deal with an incident that had occurred nearly four months ago. She kept suggesting that without a tail number and considering the time that had passed it might be difficult to investigate. I assured her that the SBI (Eastman) had confirmed that their plane was in the vicinity at the time of the incident, that we knew where the plane was but were denied the tail number, and that the authorized method of marking would not" allow observation of these markings while the plane was in flight. Finally I suggested that there are two types of public servants -those who take the job for a pay check and those who take the job to be of service to the public. I suggested that if she were the latter there should be no difficulty in pursuing the investigation with the information we were able to provide. Her manner seemed to change and she began, in earnest, to ask the questions necessary to investigate the matter. She did, near the end of our conversation, indicate that she would probably have to pass the information on to her boss, that generally when the "accused" was another government agency the complaint would be forwarded to them for review, and that "the big boys have to talk to the big boys." Knowing the government as I do I am sure that there will be an attempt at a white wash. I can assure you that I will pursue this matter as much as I am able to get answers to the questions that the public servant (Eastman, who seemed offended when I suggested that this was what he was) refused to answer for me.

As I was speaking to this very considerate representative of the FAA I was able to learn some interesting things. What is referred to as "public use" aircraft are exempt from many of the regulations imposed upon private individuals and other aircraft and pilots. First is that the license required for private and corporate pilots (certification) is not required of "public use" pilots. Yes, you heard me right, no license is required for, say, an SBI pilot to fly in the friendly skies. I knew this to be true in the military, but considering the discipline that the military imposes, and other factors, I don"t see this as significant. But when the same "privilege" is allowed to the type of people that have become notorious for busting down doors and other invasions of our privacy, and complete lack of respect for people like you and I (the them and us syndrome), I shudder to think that these people are exempt from regulation that are, theoretically, imposed to provide for public safety. Even worse was when I found that the aircraft"s air worthiness is subject to the same lack of control. Just think, the low flying aircraft that is subject to lesser flight restrictions, and altitudes, than private pilots, could fail much closer to the ground if the maintenance requirement were not voluntarily kept up with, causing risk to life and limb, and this is not subject to any review by FAA or others unless self imposed.

I have been promised preliminary results on the investigation by Friday afternoon. I will keep you posted.

Go to Report #3

Return to Northpoint Investigation Page

Go to Report #5