All Activity

I kind of suspect that too. They were obviously looking for something since there was an existing search warrant. Reading further into the case sort of leads me in a different direction altogether. I hope they take it - it's an important issue - but can just about see SCOTUS refusing the case for 'fishy.' We have a pilot who apparently has been the subject of surveillance at the airport for something unspecified. Even without more it makes the case less sympathetic. But, having been in that world, I don't have a problem with a jury finding that the pilot saw the same six pack the trooper says he saw through the window. Either way, that's what trials are about and unless you are there and hear the testimony live (even transcripts are a poor substitute) , you don't have the ability to judge the believability of the witnesses. There was a case a long time ago that led me to avoid second-guessing the factual strength of cases I am not directly involved with.

I appreciate that. I don't mind knowing there are issues with certain engines, I do mind when GAMI comes out saying it is drop in and then 25+ planes got bricked and one was totaled $600K 421C. They now have changed their narrative: as there is no perfect fuel, they have added a disclaimer on wet tanks when you buy the STC and changed the FAQ. in November when I (and many others) got the STC it was drop in, don't need to change a thing. and that's a fact.

I think what bothers me about this case, beyond the egregious forfeiture, is the conviction based the pilot's 'knowledge' of the six-pack, which was based on him seeing through a plastic bag. Yes, I understand the jury 'fact found' that he did, but it seems 'fishy' as @M20F said. To me the key bit of information that you provided is, "The troopers were there to execute a search warrant for the airplane (a warrant that had been issued in connection with another investigation)." My 'spidey sense' is they were after him for something bigger and settled for 'getting' him on a lousy six-pack! They searched based on their warrant and that was all they could find!

Definitely more than the Internet provides. After all, you said you found nothing with ChatGPT. Irene as informant? Sure, a possibility. But it doesn't make my spidey sense tingle Maybe I've been out of the criminal law biz too many years?

Seems to me there is a much stronger case to take Irene’s car than the airplane. At minimum why not take both. I will stand by there is something more to the story than the internet provides, my tinfoil hat never fails me.

You had me at blonde and debrief.

Doing some of this recently really made me want an AoA indicator.

There's a blonde astrophysicist somewhere around here who wants to debrief you on this.

So a few people say, but i’ve never had a flat in over 20+ years of using them. Can’t help but suspect some of these reported flats are pinch flats. But what do i know since never had a flat. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, that. Helen was charged and pleaded guilty. As indicated the the quote I pasted, Helen was the only one going to Beaver. She was the only passenger. After loading and before the search, Irene drove away. Speculation: Could they have charged Irene with something? Probably, but police and prosecutor decided not to. Maybe they felt the evidence against her would be too weak or just too much bother. Sign of something fishy? Maybe. But it sounds normal to my ear.

The pilot didn’t but the beer, never flew to the dry city, etc. I wasn’t asking a question I was making the point it seems fishy. The two individuals who apparently purchased the beer, had apparently intent to bring it to the dry town, etc. received no charges.

“a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.” Your not understanding proves the point.

Full disclosure, my engine turned that time. I wrecked the bike and some bikers down the street who watched me tune the thing all the time bought the wreck and put the engine on a drag bike. They did the 9.2 on the drag bike. The most bizarre thing that happened with that bike happened one night at about 2:00 AM. I was assistant manager at a pizza parlor and had to close the place, so I didn’t get out till then. I pulled up to this stop light and a police bike pulled up in the lane next to me. When the light turned green, we both took off an a normal speed, then the cop bike sped up a bit, so I did too, then the cop nailed it and so did I. I pulled well ahead of him. We hit about 140. At the next light we were once again in adjacent lanes. I didn’t look at him and he didn’t look at me. When the light turned green I took off at a normal speed and he turned right.

d. I guess I don't understand your question.

Seems to me Helene and Irene are the perpetrators here and yet received no charges. So no it doesn’t really clear it up.

This is true in a lot of reference books as well. It’s a good tool. In the example we are discussing here it read court transcripts, newspapers, etc. It couldn’t determine the facts and was clear about it, I couldn’t draw conclusions from the feedback it presented either. Caveat emptor applies just as much now as it did two thousand years ago. AI though is a wildly powerful tool and we use it for analytics heavily in my field these days, its ability to sift data and give guidance is nothing short of magical.

Agreed. All the AI searches are very good so long as we understand they are mostly Cliff Notes whose author may not have read the whole book, and may have been looking at someone else's Cliff Notes as a source.

ChatGPT is a powerful tool, you should learn how to leverage it.

To minimize the altitude loss in the turn you need to load the wing to just above stall. But, since you will want best glide speed coming out of the turn, I’ve found a good compromise is to fly the turn at best glide speed.

That’s not what irony is….

Does this help clear up the overall situation? It's from the first appeal (the case went from the state trial court to the Alaska Court of Appeals back to the trial court, again to the Court of Appeals and then to the Alaska Supreme Court) On the intent issue, often it's a knowledge issue. The pilot claimed that he didn't know there was alcohol. There was testimony that while that might have been true about some of the cases, he would have to be blind to have not seen the six pack in a plastic grocery bag in plain view. That's why he was only charged with the six-pack. Ultimately it's a fact issue for the jury, which found against him. Kenneth Jouppi and his wife were the two principals of Ken Air, LLC, and Jouppi was the only pilot working for Ken Air. On April 3, 2012, Alaska State Troopers were conducting surveillance of Jouppi and his airplane at the Fairbanks airport. The troopers were there to execute a search warrant for the airplane (a warrant that had been issued in connection with another investigation). As the troopers watched, two women—Helen Nicholia and Irene Todd—drove up to Jouppi's airplane. Jouppi was scheduled to fly Nicholia to Beaver, a local option village. Nicholia and Todd's vehicle contained several boxes and semi-transparent grocery bags. The troopers observed Jouppi opening and closing these boxes and bags, and redistributing their contents to fill up the containers. Jouppi then loaded this cargo into his airplane (with no assistance from the women). Some of the boxes that Jouppi loaded into the plane were open, and the others were loosely closed. Based on the way Jouppi was carrying the boxes, they appeared to be heavy. Once the plane was loaded, Helen Nicholia entered the plane on the copilot side. Jouppi got into the pilot's seat, started the engine, and prepared to take off. (The other woman, Irene Todd, drove away.) At this point, the troopers contacted Jouppi and had him shut off the engine. They then executed the search warrant.

I nominate you for the King of Irony.

Your problem is in your response.

Circle talk Mike strikes again.

I don't see how that could work. That solution means a pilot would need to reduce power just when he likely needs full power. For those of us back in the 60's and early 70's that used to experiment with distributor timing finding maximum spark advance on our manual transmission cars, when we heard it knocking, we could just let off the throttle or maybe downshift before going into full blown detonation. We could just pull over and stop - maybe fiddle with the timing advance some more. But with our plane, there are many times we need full power - take off, clearing an obstacle. That means the POH would need two (2) sets of performance charts/sections for Full Power and Reduced (Knocking/Detonation) Power. Putting a pilot in the position of trying to decide whether to destroy the engine vs attain a needed rate of climb seems like a formula for disaster. I bet the lawyers for everyone (airframe, engine and even the fuel suppliers) would stop it in its tracks. More likely they would mandate permanent engine modifications such as reduced compression (piston change), reduced timing, reduced max RPM, limited/reduced max boost