Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
(5) The equipment failed!#4: and make counter-accusations
(5) The equipment failed!#4: and make counter-accusations
There is a statute of limitations on these things, unless the conduct is so egregious that you holding an airman/air carrier certificate poses a threat to the public. None of that is egregious.
Looking for some more opinions on this.
Ahhh. I see, said the blind man. I knew they had a certain window to act, I just didn't know when it started. Thanks.Kind of yes and kind of no.
There is what is called "the stale complaint rule". That requires the FAA to take action on a regulatory violation within six months of the time it learns of it. So, the clock doesn't start ticking when the event occurs. It starts ticking when the FAA learns of it. I've seen a case go forward for an event that was over a decade in the past.
However, to your second point of how egregious the event was, that is true whether it is a new or old event. The FAA's preferred method for handling a regulatory violation is with a counseling. It's easier on everyone, and if it gets the job done, then that's great. Of course, other factors come into play such as ASAP and ASRS.
I'm not a commercial/ATP/etc pilot, so I don't know what goes on in those circles, but I also don't understand the notion that they would assume you were lying if you said "no". Yeah people make mistakes, but I know lots of folks (yours truly included) who have never been flight violated or knowingly broken a FAR. I find it hard to believe that we are an exception to the norm amongst professional pilots.
If you haven't goofed up taxi instructions at least once (in a trivial manner, not in a "I taxied in front of a landing Lufthansa Airbus" manner) then you might not actually be experienced.Easy way out: Yes
Easy cause de rigeur: I more fatigued than I thought I was.
Be creative.
Leave out the "misinterpreted the "do a barrel roll" on google"