Expired Medical Scenario

MikeD said:
The NTSB can and regularly does hand off minor incidents/accidents to the FAA for investigation. They don't necessarily investigate all of them.
Click to expand...

It's somewhat of a matrix. How severe were the injuries, if any. Who was aboard. What type of aircraft was involved. What is the public interest or attention to the accident. What is the availability of an NTSB investigator. All of that goes into making a decision on whether an NTSB investigator will be sent to the site or not.

The FAA always takes the role of assisting the NTSB whether the NTSB is on site or not. The FAA's role is to investigate and gather facts. Additional parties to the investigation may be involved. . However, it is the NTSB that is in control of the accident investigation. Everything is turned over to the NTSB for analysis and assignment of a probable cause. Then it is presented to the NTSB Board for review and approval or disapproval.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
You may think so. I don't. I've been through an accident investigation. Personal experience says: When you notam cloased a runway to remove your airplane from it, the FAA "finds" out. The FAA is pretty damn good at turning whatever they want into an accident. If you don't report it, and they "find out" they seem to think you are trying to cover something up... Even if the only dammage is to the landing gear, prop tips, and a couple of runway lights, they will open an investigation. In my case the NTSB didn't care. The FAA on the other hand, did. The FAA didn't look at what "caused" the event. They interviewed at great length. took stories and witness accounts. They didn't give a hoot about the engine failling or not. They didn't even look at it. While they may have had a MX inspector deal with that side, I never saw them. They took every word from the statement, and did the best they could to turn it against us. They don't violate for whatever happens, they go after what you were doing that led up to the event.

I know somebody who landed belly first in his 172rg. In his statement, he said that he put the gear down, ran his checklist. He told them he saw light, that he now believes have been the setting sun reflecting in the lamp, not the actual light. The breaker for the gear had popped, so it never went down. He got a letter and nothing else. I know another guy who gear it up in his arrow. He told the FAA that he normally relied upon the piper back up etension system (not deactivated) to automatically extend the gear for him, and never bothered to do it for himself. He did asrs it, and he did get violated. As i said, the FAA doesn't consider the gear up landing a violation. It is the action the leads up to it that they violate for. Not understanding that, and not being carefull with what you say to the FAA is more likely to result in the violation. I understand that the FAA has a "chart" outlining the licence suspension periods for a gear up landing. That applies when they find that you were acting in violation of 14 cfr 91.13.

I was lucky. I managed to get a guy at the fsdo invoved who was familiar with Aztecs. He understood that flaps 35? ( i forget what the full flaps is now) , gear down, left engine inop at low altitude, you will be hitting the ground. In the aztec, you only have the option to manually pump up the flaps and gear (not exactly fast, practical or easy) if the engine with the hyd pump fails. I don't feel like reposting the entire accident, but, I was lucky to get completely cleared, with nothing other than a scarry story to show. Initially it wasn't going that way ( at the time i was a student pilot in the plane, with a total of 2.5 hours ME time. The FAA still wanted me)
Click to expand...

That is still just equivocation intermixed with personal assumptions regarding the motivation and reason for the actions and decisions of others. However, it is interesting.
 
Houston said:
That is still just equivocation intermixed with personal assumptions regarding the motivation and reason for the actions and decisions of others. However, it is interesting.
Click to expand...
sure thing. I'm obviously trying to trick people into filling out ASAP reports for landing gear up. I most certainly misinterpreted the LOI. It was likely just a friendly invite to chat.

I'm also sure they showed up at the airport for the pancake cookout across the way, not the airlplane that closed the runway...

Every time you land a Lake on a "lake" you had better hope the gear is up.. otherwise you've got a problem. In the winter time, when taking float only planes out of the water, it's very common to land them in the grass, then put them on a trailer. After engine failure, pilots have elected to land gear up depending on the situation, and not been violated.

Heck a good number of Lakes have geared up, because the squat switch is prone to corrosion, and may stick in the "green" position. Though you can clearly see each wheel from the cockpit, they don't usually get violated.

The FAA can issue an LOI for nearly anything they don't like. They don't have to prove you violated anything to investigate an incident. The asap/asrs reports give you a level of protection in the interest of increasing safety reporting. If the FAA suspects, or thinks that an asrs is about an accident, they can, and will get the report. They don't have to prove that it was an accident to get the data. (but, asrs report will not be used to determine, assign, or take action against a pilot) If you gear up a landing, ASRS it thats fine. If they find out about the "misshap" like they did with mine (closed airport) they don't need the ASRS report to identify it. My event did not meet the criteria of an accident, but they came out and investigated anyways.

bottom line, If you make a mistake, asrs/asap it. If you go out there and do something dumb intentionlaly, like buzz a friends house, and then hear that the neighbor called the FAA... the ASRS won't really help you. If you make a mistake and gear up, ASRS will help. If you intentionally go out and do something dumb, resulting in a gear up... no help. If you forget to get a new medical and asap it.. no problems. Go out and continue to fly after reporting it and get busted? you've got a problem.

While you may not have to report you're gear up landing, honestly, trying to keep it clean by not reporting may land you in more trouble. As soon as you close a runway, get the local airport officials involved, block or hinder other air traffic, word gets out in a public way. Do it at your home private airport.. fine. FAA gets a call from the airport manager telling them 8-26 is closed for an airplane on it's belly, guess what they are going to do? I promise you, it's not wait around to see if somebody files a report or not. If they come out and decided that your substantial damage is not in alignment with their "substantial" damage, then your day gets harder.
 
What I'm wondering in the original scenario is whether the lapse in Medical would show up in an FAA paperwork check if the guy applied to a 135/121? I've always wondered what they check on those things?
 
Inverted25 said:
Had a flight instructor around here who did the same thing. Someone found out and called the FAA and he ended up having his pilot license and CFI license suspended for six months
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Not condoning flying illegally, but why call the FAA? Did that person have it in for that CFI or something?
 
flybarrier said:
What I'm wondering in the original scenario is whether the lapse in Medical would show up in an FAA paperwork check if the guy applied to a 135/121? I've always wondered what they check on those things?
Click to expand...

I am not positive, but I believe not. I think it merely provides the status of the current medical. This link and the links within it should provide further information on the subject.

http://www.esrcheck.com/pria_aviation_airlines.php
 
During a very cold winter in the 1980s, a pilot on floats flew to Oklahoma City intending to land on a lake. Everything was frozen. He lacked fuel to get to liquid water, so he opted to land on the grass between parallel runways at KPWA. No big deal, he didn't declare an emergency, he sought and was granted permission from tower to land on the grass, and did so without a problem. FAA showed up, declared it to be an accident and opened an investigation, although I never learned the outcome.
 
tomokc said:
During a very cold winter in the 1980s, a pilot on floats flew to Oklahoma City intending to land on a lake. Everything was frozen. He lacked fuel to get to liquid water, so he opted to land on the grass between parallel runways at KPWA. No big deal, he didn't declare an emergency, he sought and was granted permission from tower to land on the grass, and did so without a problem. FAA showed up, declared it to be an accident and opened an investigation, although I never learned the outcome.
Click to expand...
I'd take that whole story with a few grains of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top