"Cleared to" verses "cleared direct to"

deadstick said:
You know what they say about somebody who represents himself in court, right? :cool:
Click to expand...
Exactly.
a052e0f4b12dabedbaaa817ac6caa45b.jpg
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
That's not completely true, especially these days. The FAA group that prosecutes enforcement and civil penalty actions are dealing with budget issues. That may still allow a lot of action against pilots since their budget will still be better than most of ours, but the decision whether to go forward with enforcement (at any discretionary level) will include consideration of both costs and triviality. An altitude bust, to use a common example, may or may lead to enforcement action based on such non-trivial considerations as whether there was a loss of separation or not.

And, yeah, there are limits to what the FAA will pay but, more importantly, there always limits to what we can do, although I suspect Merrell would have ultimately had a different result if decided today under the Pilots Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I'll defer to you experience in the matter. I'm sure my FAA legal experience is about 1-2% of yours, at best.
Still, I have seen government budget issues and unless the FAA legal budget is different it can lead to the legal department wanting to spend money, not save money. Most government budgets are "use or lose", meaning any money not spent in one fiscal year does not carry over to the next fiscal year. In addition, if money is saved often your budget is decreased by the same amount the following year as you obviously don't need it.
I've also see scenarios where a section would spend all their money by the third quarter, then get money from sections that were frugal. The following year the section that spent all their money by the third quarter got more because they obviously needed it while the sections that were frugal with their money got theirs slashed as they obviously did not need the money. It really leads to goofy behavior in government budgets.

I also have the personal experience where AOPA legal even told me not to bother with an attorney at first when I went to the FSDO as the matter was so minor. They admitted they were shocked when the FAA asked for certification action. Heck, people I knew at several FSDOs told me it was minor and worst case I would get a letter. Someone saw different.
A year and a half later the FAA lawyer even approached my lawyer and said this was all very minor, would I just take a letter or maybe give a class. Of course my lawyer said that's what I wanted from day one. A month later he came back and said the deal was off- someone wanted their pound of flesh.
By the time we were going to go before a judge, 2 1/2 years after the incident, my AOPA money was gone, my witnesses were scattered. My lawyer felt we had a good chance there based upon the judge we were assigned, but the FAA was most certain to appeal to the NTSB where our chances were maybe 50/50 at best. I'm sure you have an idea about the cost that was going to be involved- two hearings, both involving travel for the lawyer, one in DC. I had no choice but to fold.
My lawyer got it reduced to 15 days from 45 days.
The FAA "lost" my certificate, however, and refused to let me fly until I had my original. I got it back... 45 days later.

Between this, what happened with the MCI FSDO in the late '90's, Bob Hoover... well, let's say I'm a little jaundiced about the FAA legal system.
 
Blackhawk said:
I'll defer to you experience in the matter. I'm sure my FAA legal experience is about 1-2% of yours, at best.
Still, I have seen government budget issues and unless the FAA legal budget is different it can lead to the legal department wanting to spend money, not save money. Most government budgets are "use or lose", meaning any money not spent in one fiscal year does not carry over to the next fiscal year. In addition, if money is saved often your budget is decreased by the same amount the following year as you obviously don't need it.
I've also see scenarios where a section would spend all their money by the third quarter, then get money from sections that were frugal. The following year the section that spent all their money by the third quarter got more because they obviously needed it while the sections that were frugal with their money got theirs slashed as they obviously did not need the money. It really leads to goofy behavior in government budgets.

I also have the personal experience where AOPA legal even told me not to bother with an attorney at first when I went to the FSDO as the matter was so minor. They admitted they were shocked when the FAA asked for certification action. Heck, people I knew at several FSDOs told me it was minor and worst case I would get a letter. Someone saw different.
A year and a half later the FAA lawyer even approached my lawyer and said this was all very minor, would I just take a letter or maybe give a class. Of course my lawyer said that's what I wanted from day one. A month later he came back and said the deal was off- someone wanted their pound of flesh.
By the time we were going to go before a judge, 2 1/2 years after the incident, my AOPA money was gone, my witnesses were scattered. My lawyer felt we had a good chance there based upon the judge we were assigned, but the FAA was most certain to appeal to the NTSB where our chances were maybe 50/50 at best. I'm sure you have an idea about the cost that was going to be involved- two hearings, both involving travel for the lawyer, one in DC. I had no choice but to fold.
My lawyer got it reduced to 15 days from 45 days.
The FAA "lost" my certificate, however, and refused to let me fly until I had my original. I got it back... 45 days later.

Between this, what happened with the MCI FSDO in the late '90's, Bob Hoover... well, let's say I'm a little jaundiced about the FAA legal system.
Click to expand...


Holy crap...
 
Blackhawk said:
Between this, what happened with the MCI FSDO in the late '90's, Bob Hoover... well, let's say I'm a little jaundiced about the FAA legal system.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt that, as with any enforcement agency, there are "success" stories and "horror" stories.

There was one a few years back where a Part 135 operation had passed muster with it's POI for years. I'm sure there's an interesting back story but, at some point, the FAA sent in a team from another FSDO that ended up ripping a new one into the operation and its principals.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
There's no doubt that, as with any enforcement agency, there are "success" stories and "horror" stories.

There was one a few years back where a Part 135 operation had passed muster with it's POI for years. I'm sure there's an interesting back story but, at some point, the FAA sent in a team from another FSDO that ended up ripping a new one into the operation and its principals.
Click to expand...

Mark, I agree. The vast majority of safety inspectors I've run into are great people. Still, I would advise anyone called into a FSDO for a "talk", no matter how trivial it might seem, get legal representation.
Also I know of POIs who look the other way. There is a well known 135 cargo carrier that has had numerous accidents, yet is still around. After one accident I pulled up flight aware and looked at the flight. The crew had been on duty, best case, over 18 hours when they had their accident. Nothing happened.
 
Blackhawk said:
Mark, I agree. The vast majority of safety inspectors I've run into are great people. Still, I would advise anyone called into a FSDO for a "talk", no matter how trivial it might seem, get legal representation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Most of what I do is advise. Many times while in the background without the FAA knowing the pilot is represented. The idea is for the pilot to have a professional on his side who has the ability to indendently and neutrally evaluating what took place and make a response, or no response, based on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top