nmflyguy, are you still with us?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plane_crash_cocaine

kevbert wrote:nmflyguy, are you still with us?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plane_crash_cocaine

I hear he's "comfortably numb"-

No reason for me to know anything more about this than you, Kevbert ... smuggling of various kinds has always been a part of aviation (as with boating and shipping), and New Mexico is a border state - as is Idaho. At one point back in the wild and wooly 80s, it was popularly thought in south Florida that just about every joe that owned an airplane was carrying coke or "square grouper" from the Bahamas for extra pocket change.

For all we know, more bad stuff is coming over the Canadian border than is coming over the Mexican border, or the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf coasts ... there's a lot less security on our northern border than those other parts of our national boundary. We only hear about the ones that are caught, or that crack up carrying a load.

Somebody's knickers are in a bunch

No offense intended, nmflyguy! I'm probably picking on him because I used to live in NM, and it's snowing today here, and I know damned well it's warm and sunny down there.

Many years ago, I was supposed to meet an instructor at the old Coronado airport in Albuquerque, but he was a no-show. I was later told he had been caught flying marijuana up from Mexico. And, it was just a few years ago that the feds (Operation Northern Timber) broke up a huge helicopter drug smuggling outfit that was moving cocaine and pot through the Pasayten Wilderness between the U.S. and Canada.

So, the borders continue to be active. However, they are now using submarines, so they could send one up the Mississipi and the midwest states could be the new dope distribution points.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/drug-submarine-seized-colombia_n_823445.html

SkyTruck wrote:Somebody's knickers are in a bunch

It's not about knickers bunching .... people on this board have in the past been investigated and charged by the Feds on at least one infamous occasion due to someone reading about allegedly illegal activity in a BCP post ... I was briefed on that concern by Zane himself when I once posted a question concerning what members have personally done in the past that could be construed as a FAR violation (i.e., flying with a bent prop).

As crappy as that may be - getting ratted out by a fellow BCP reader (or, god forbid, BCP member), that's the world we live in.

So when someone posts something that could be construed as associating me with a criminal activity - even in jest - I just want to make it clear that there is no such association.

Some subjects can be joked about in person, in a bar, or out in the backwoods - but this is the internet and anyone in the world can be reading what's said here.

Just to let you guys know MY panties aren't in a wad over this. I DID NOT violate the Mann Act today flying here in Nevada. Now yesterday.... Ya gotta prove it first.

Gump

Okay, I've lived with the guilt of this for decades now, time to come clean. I was an Oakland, CA cop at the time, so could tip myself off if the authorities suspected anything. My plan was to buy up drugs on the streets of Oakland and fly 'em down to sell in Mexico. No one else was doing it, so I'd have the market pretty much to myself and the border patrol hardly looked at south bound traffic. Besides, it meshed nicely with my lifelong proclavity for buy high, sell low.

Sure feels good to get this off my chest. Okay, they can come and take me away now.

nmflyguy wrote:

SkyTruck wrote:Somebody's knickers are in a bunch

It's not about knickers bunching .... people on this board have in the past been investigated and charged by the Feds on at least one infamous occasion due to someone reading about allegedly illegal activity in a BCP post ... I was briefed on that concern by Zane himself when I once posted a question concerning what members have personally done in the past that could be construed as a FAR violation (i.e., flying with a bent prop).

As crappy as that may be - getting ratted out by a fellow BCP reader (or, god forbid, BCP member), that's the world we live in.

So when someone posts something that could be construed as associating me with a criminal activity - even in jest - I just want to make it clear that there is no such association.

Some subjects can be joked about in person, in a bar, or out in the backwoods - but this is the internet and anyone in the world can be reading what's said here.

I think that there's a BIG difference in openly admitting, bragging, and even posting pictures about something that the Feds didn't think was too funny, but I don't think anyone is being ratted out here by anyone. You can't get my knickers in a wad.....I ain't wearing any.......picture that!

nmflyguy wrote:

SkyTruck wrote:Somebody's knickers are in a bunch

It's not about knickers bunching .... people on this board have in the past been investigated and charged by the Feds on at least one infamous occasion due to someone reading about allegedly illegal activity in a BCP post ... I was briefed on that concern by Zane himself when I once posted a question concerning what members have personally done in the past that could be construed as a FAR violation (i.e., flying with a bent prop).

As crappy as that may be - getting ratted out by a fellow BCP reader (or, god forbid, BCP member), that's the world we live in.

So when someone posts something that could be construed as associating me with a criminal activity - even in jest - I just want to make it clear that there is no such association.

Some subjects can be joked about in person, in a bar, or out in the backwoods - but this is the internet and anyone in the world can be reading what's said here.

I don't think smuggling drugs in any way helps general aviation or other pilots. Not sure what you mean by "rating out" but it makes it sound like your more concerned about protecting guilty drug smugglers than honest pilots?

It could also be that you're the only regular posting guy with "NM" in your username, and thus the first one people think of when NM news hits. I'd be happy that someone appreciates you company enough to joke with you.

I like to think that even the Feds can detect a little tongue in cheek on the Internet, BUT I could be wrong.

Anyone ever see the movie "Blow?" This guys takes his dad's 210 to transport some drugs and makes the hardest landing I've ever seen on a dirt road.

I flew the 182 from Colorado to Bahamas over Christmas and found the island from Carlos in the movie blow. It is called Norman cay. He basically moved on to the island and forced most of the inhabitants away. He built a nice 3500' strip to help refuel his drug plans on their trek up to the states. His house is still on the island and he is in jail now. There is a downed drug plane just off the runway in pretty shallow water, great for snorkeling. we ate at this little cafe right next to the strip, then borrowed some kayaks. Great water, however, on our way out we saw a 13 ft shark just off the island in the crystal clear water. Pretty cool place.

You guys just wait. Soon enough we'll all be weighing the risks of flying shipments of clear mogas and 100LL across the border. Forget this petty narc BS...

nmflyguy wrote:

SkyTruck wrote:Somebody's knickers are in a bunch

It's not about knickers bunching .... people on this board have in the past been investigated and charged by the Feds on at least one infamous occasion due to someone reading about allegedly illegal activity in a BCP post ... I was briefed on that concern by Zane himself when I once posted a question concerning what members have personally done in the past that could be construed as a FAR violation (i.e., flying with a bent prop).

As crappy as that may be - getting ratted out by a fellow BCP reader (or, god forbid, BCP member), that's the world we live in.

So when someone posts something that could be construed as associating me with a criminal activity - even in jest - I just want to make it clear that there is no such association.

Some subjects can be joked about in person, in a bar, or out in the backwoods - but this is the internet and anyone in the world can be reading what's said here.

These are not illegal

Soon enough we'll all be weighing the risks of flying shipments of clear mogas and 100LL across the border.

Do what you want but I'll do this instead---especially since the source of the fuel is within sight----13 miles.
http://www.ethanolairshows.com/

This thread reminds me of a document I found a couple of years ago on the cbp.gov website. It's the "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Guide for Private Flyers", found here:
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/private_flyers/private_flyers_guide.ctt/private_flyers_guide.pdf

On pages 3-5 it lists the 22 guidelines that indicate that a pilot is a smuggler or a terrorist. And, I managed to get 17 out of 22! Best of all, if you call them and they come and illegally sieze my aircraft, they will give you a big reward, and then I have to figure out how to get my airplane back.

1. Aircraft with unusual or unauthorized modifications.
2. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration numbers on the aircraft that
appear to be incomplete, crooked, altered, or concealed.
3. Aviators who pay cash for fuel or services, or pilots or passengers who display
large amounts of cash.
4. Persons wishing to rent aircraft without presenting proper credentials or
identification.
5. Persons who present apparently valid credentials but who do not display a
corresponding level of aviation knowledge.
6. Persons whose identification appears altered or inconsistent.
7. Passenger seats removed from the aircraft.
8. Gas cans inside the aircraft or individuals without an aircraft who buy large
amounts of aviation gas in containers.
9. Strong odors from the aircraft from possible chemical agents, or perfumes and
deodorizers (often used to disguise the odor of marijuana and cocaine).
10. Any pilot who makes threats or statements inconsistent with normal use of an
aircraft.
11. Muddy wheels, dirty or dusty aircraft, beat-up props, pitted undercarriage, or
other evidence of landings on unpaved air strips or in fields, sand, etc.
12. Vans, panel trucks, or campers meeting the aircraft at an isolated location.
13. Pilot or passengers reluctant to leave the aircraft’s immediate area or to allow
others close to the aircraft during refueling or servicing.
14. Pilots who appear to be under the control of another person.
15. Persons loitering for extended periods in the vicinity of parked aircraft, in pilot
lounges, or other areas deemed inappropriate.
16. Maps in the aircraft or similar evidence of flights to Mexico, the Caribbean,
Central or South America when the pilot avoids reference to such flights, or a
pilot who requests maps or information about areas in Mexico, the Caribbean,
Central or South America when it appears that he is not going to follow official
procedures for such trips.
17. Numerous cardboard boxes, duffel bags, plastic bags, or similar containers
inside the aircraft, or seeds, green vegetable matter, fragments of various
butcher paper or cellophane wrap indicating possible marijuana debris visible
inside the aircraft; tape markings around the tail that alter or conceal the tail
number or that seem intended to do so, or other residue around the aircraft tail
number.
18. Individuals who list themselves on aircraft rental applications as being self-
employed and operating from their residence.
19. Individuals who rent hangars for one month or a similar short-term basis,
particularly when they pay cash in advance and give minimal information about
the reason or circumstances of the short-term rental.
20. Pilots who own or operate expensive aircraft with no visible means of support,
or other factors that might lead you to believe the individual is engaged in
criminal activities like narcotics trafficking.
21. Pilots reluctant to discuss destination, point of origin, or any of the above
conditions.
22. Any other event or circumstance that does not fit the pattern of lawful, normal
activity at an airport.

Any of the foregoing items, especially when coupled with other suspicious behaviors by
the aircraft operator or occupants may indicate that the aircraft is being used in an
illegal activity. If you observe any of the foregoing, and you believe there is a possibility
that individuals might be engaged in an illegal activity, please note any information
about the identity of the pilot(s), other occupants, aircraft, description, and license
numbers of vehicles. Under no circumstances, however, should you take direct action
on your own. Immediately, or as soon as you safely can, notify CBP officers at your
local airport, or by calling the CBP Air and Marine Unit at 1-866-AIR-BUST (1-866-247-
2878). Suspicious activity can also be reported to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) at either their national 1-866-DHS-2ICE (1-866-347-2423) number,
or by contacting the ICE office nearest you. All information will be held in confidence.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has also developed and implemented
a 24-hour general aviation (GA) hotline in partnership with the National Response
Center. The GA Hotline, 1-866-GA-SECURE (1-866-427-3287), serves as a centralized
reporting system for general aviation pilots, airport operators, and maintenance
technicians wishing to report suspicious activity at their airfield.
If, as a result of your information, CBP or ICE seizes and causes the forfeiture of
currency or monetary instruments, you could receive a reward of up to $150,000. In the
case of information leading to vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or other property seizures, a
reward of up to $250,000 could be paid.

kevbert wrote:11. Muddy wheels, dirty or dusty aircraft, beat-up props, pitted undercarriage, or
other evidence of landings on unpaved air strips or in fields, sand, etc.

Ruh-roh!

Kevbert, that's hilarious. I scored 13 without even trying

kevbert wrote:5. Persons who present apparently valid credentials but who do not display a
corresponding level of aviation knowledge.

That's 99% of us.

kevbert wrote:20. Pilots who own or operate expensive aircraft with no visible means of support

This stuff is really starting to add up here...

Zane wrote:

kevbert wrote:5. Persons who present apparently valid credentials but who do not display a
corresponding level of aviation knowledge.

That's 99% of us.

kevbert wrote:20. Pilots who own or operate expensive aircraft with no visible means of support

This stuff is really starting to add up here...

I pretty much fit in those two categories