Oh wow, a lot of Black and White opinions here, but it's not that black and white to me. Maybe I need to have a little more human compassion burned out of me before my opinions are fit for the mainstream.
Full disclosure, I know Mikey fairly well. He's a loveable idiot to many and an annoyance to others. I'm in the former category. I wouldn't call him unintelligent by any means. Uneducated, probably. He certainly graduated from the school of hard knocks. To answer one rather unkind question here, I'm pretty certain that he is totally clean and has been for many years but his life experiences have obviously left him with some emotional scars that I am sure have some bearing on how this has all played out.
I can't watch his videos personally, too much yelling and screaming and theatre for me. I still have a touch of PTSD and it sets me off so I don't watch.
I told him along time ago it wasn't going to end well in my eyes, I wasn't the only one by any means but he thought differently and now we're here.
I would never EVER do what he did. I'm a commercial operator, I have thousands invested in training, equipment and business related expenses and that sort of "act now care later" attitude is not in my make up. I don't defend him in any way and we all know and agree that he certainly had something coming.
So, let's look at the other side of this. We all as individuals have an obligation to conduct ourselves in an equitable manner that does not affect the life style and safety of others. That's why we have regulatory bodies, to ensure this. Those regulatory bodies in turn have an obligation to deal with the public in an equitable manner. We all like to point out and down cry others who don't abide by the restrictions that we abide by willingly and cheer from the side lines when they inevitably fall but is this penalty in this equitable? I'd argue not.
We only know what we have been told, Mike says and probably quite rightly that as this is still active he is limited to what he can say wisely. As far as anyone knows at this point he was not breached for flying over population, airspace violations etc. The only confirmed breaches we know about are "flying in the rain", "flying in fog" and the like and everything else he has done the FAA seems have covered with the blanket charge of "Reckless flying". More charges may, probably will, come out in time but that's what we know now.
What we do know for sure is that FAA knew about this for over a year, indeed they sent him correspondence every month (not for every flight as someone else claimed) listing their concerns which, being an idiot (loveable or not) he ignored. Well I'm sorry, FAA can't have it both ways.
If this was an issue of public safety how does the FAA justify allowing it to knowingly continue daily for over a year while taking no affirmative action to stop it? Here in Australia my door would have been kicked in about the time I ignored the first letter, in fact there would have been no letter in a case of genuine safety concerns. I would have been collared personally. Rightly so.
If on the other hand as suggested by the lack of affirmative action there was no clear and immediate danger to the public then how is this level of penalty justifiable? Remember, we all agree he had something coming but it is a basic underpinning of western democracy and our justice systems that "The punishment should reflect the gravity of the crime". No more and no less. Remember, no one was actually harmed, frightened or offended during the course of his infractions.
Let's put aside the "lynch mob mentality" for a minute. I don't expect my regulatory bodies to sit by for a year and allow something to go on and then when it has reached some arbitrary point to all of a sudden jump in and punish an individual by literally destroying his life. I have serious concerns for Mike's personal safety. Are we all going to feel righteously vindicated and that justice is done when Mike offs himself and his family suffers, let's not forget them, who have done nothing but how are they going to be affected by a $184004 fine? On the streets much? Don't tell me "he should have thought of that before hand" because we've all done stuff we should have thought of before hand. "When you are up to your neck in alligators it's hard to remember that the original intention was to drain the swamp". We're past that point now.
What should of happened is that as soon as it became apparent what Mike was doing he should have been pinged then and there, breached for his actions and faced a just $4 - $5k fine which I am pretty sure would have been quite a speed bump in his life while still allowing him a life to go on with.
In my mind such heavy handed actions by regulatory bodies become an obvious exercise in compliance not in safety and as such they reduce the repute and the respect given to the authority taking these actions. When you don't respect the regulatory body the incentive to take them seriously is greatly lessened.
Also, fair go chaps. You might not agree with me and that's fine but let's play the ball and not the man. I'm not calling anyone out here personally because I have a different opinion. I'd appreciate the same.
Regards
Ari