Had to report two to the FSDO

[dasleben]

Ultimately the choice to land was the pilots and only the pilots. That is a basic fact. The ramifications of the landings is another matter. Here I do play a role, which is to act on behalf of and in the best interest of the land owner. In this case that is to document and report the incident to the appropriate authority.

It is now up to the appropriate authority to decide if anything improper took place. If the answer is yes, then again it falls on the pilots who made the choice.

If that's the way you feel you can wash your hands of this, by all means. Yes, the pilots are ultimately responsible for landing where they shouldn't have landed. However, did your colleagues ask you "Hey, how do I report these guys to the nearest FSDO?" Did they even know where to start before you were brought in to "help"?

Did you at all try to dissuade your company from calling the FAA?

 

[cmill]

It may sound bad, but if you had said this happened on a res in the first place, i coulda completely understood it. It wouldnt have made it any better, but it would at least make sense as to why it doesnt make any sense.

 

[ralphbrynard]

Does anyone get that the OP didn't have a choice in this matter? :banghead:

No I wasn't aware that the OP didn't have a choice. I guess I was also referring to some of the other posts I've read lately...

 

[Acadia]

If that's the way you feel you can wash your hands of this, by all means. Yes, the pilots are ultimately responsible for landing where they shouldn't have landed. However, did your colleagues ask you "Hey, how do I report these guys to the nearest FSDO?" Did they even know where to start before you were brought in to "help"?

Did you at all try to dissuade your company from calling the FAA?

I think you need to read my posts again before claiming that I am washing my hands of anything. I clearly state that I helped my coworker look up the tail numbers and directed him to the FSDO. I also stated as best as able, that it was unavoidable.

 

[Acadia]

It may sound bad, but if you had said this happened on a res in the first place, i coulda completely understood it. It wouldnt have made it any better, but it would at least make sense as to why it doesnt make any sense.

You are absolutely correct. I was trying to walk a fine line of not over sharing in a public forum, but that detail should have been included. I apologize for taking so long to clarify.

 

[MikeD]

You are absolutely correct. I was trying to walk a fine line of not over sharing in a public forum, but that detail should have been included. I apologize for taking so long to clarify.

You're still in the running for fastest burning brushfire thread in the General Topics section for this Calender Year.

 

[Acadia]

You're still in the running for fastest burning brushfire thread in the General Topics section for this Calender Year.

Does one get a nifty plastic trophy if they win?

 

[darrenf]

Does one get a nifty plastic trophy if they win?

 

[MikeD]

Thats a good idea there....

 

[dustoff17]

Not sure which is more troublesome to me personally and professionally. This:

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Or this:

Too, the attitude that has developed on this forum of everyone feeling they need to rat everyone and anyone out for anything, real or perceived, is disturbing at best too.

Perception is reality. The reality is when some idiot does something stupid in an airplane (or helicopter), it effects us ALL. Someone lands on what is seemingly a trail (clearly not an airstrip from the description) and next thing you know there's a new FAR. An idiot hits a bale of hay and we have new rules. Someone has a conversation below 10,000' and a knee-jerk Congress gets all up in arms!
The public doesn't see the "good" in general aviation and the media helps in this negative view. Here all they see are two guys with too much money to spend on "toys" landing on a hiking trail and showing off. THAT'S the reality!

If you see a blatant violation (even if its only your perception), you should report it. As said before, let the FSDO sort it out. We have to police our own hobby, jobs, pass time in order to protect what we love about flying.

 

[MikeD]

If you see a blatant violation (even if its only your perception), you should report it. As said before, let the FSDO sort it out. We have to police our own hobby, jobs, pass time in order to protect what we love about flying.

Assuming you KNOW its a blatant violation. Thats a pretty big assumption to have. There's a difference between policing something you KNOW is wrong, and ratting something that YOU MAY THINK is wrong. Big difference.

We have to police our own hobby, but we don't need to act like it's the Patriot Act II out there.....everyone looking for every opportunity to stab another pilot in the back.

How would you like it if someone perceived you were doing something wrong when you weren't, and the FSDO began getting on your butt about it? Even if and when cleared, the ass pain you had to go through based on someone elses "perception", would you be understanding?

If its something blatant and obvious, then thats a different story entirely, I think we can agree.

 

[dasleben]

If you see a blatant violation (even if its only your perception), you should report it. As said before, let the FSDO sort it out. We have to police our own hobby, jobs, pass time in order to protect what we love about flying.

Please, please stay off my aircraft then. Should I worry about guys like you sitting back there taking notes if you see me passing within 20 miles of a thunderstorm? What if I fly a more aggressive approach profile than what you're used to?

An inexperienced pilot perceiving violations and reporting them does nothing to further this industry.

 

[MikeD]

Please, please stay off my aircraft then. Should I worry about guys like you sitting back there taking notes if you see me passing within 20 miles of a thunderstorm? What if I fly a more aggressive approach profile than what you're used to?

An inexperienced pilot perceiving violations and reporting them does nothing to further this industry.

Thats the thing. Read in the other thread where 121 guys are talking about a pax reporting them for perceived violations.....the one with Doug about the guy up on headset in the back listening to the cockpit conversations.

 

[dustoff17]

Please, please stay off my aircraft then. Should I worry about guys like you sitting back there taking notes if you see me passing within 20 miles of a thunderstorm? What if I fly a more aggressive approach profile than what you're used to?

An inexperienced pilot perceiving violations and reporting them does nothing to further this industry.

Are you supposed to fly within 20 of a thunderstorm? Is an aggressive approach a similar violation compared to landing on a hiking trail? And you're assuming that a person is inexperienced if they think you're out of line.

PM me so I'll know which planes to avoid! With this attitude, I'd be glad to take another....

 

[ColoradoPilot]

Please, please stay off my aircraft then. Should I worry about guys like you sitting back there taking notes if you see me passing within 20 miles of a thunderstorm? What if I fly a more aggressive approach profile than what you're used to?

An inexperienced pilot perceiving violations and reporting them does nothing to further this industry.

I agree with you on this. But there is a HUGE difference between landing on a closed private runway and an aggressive approach profile. Making comparisons like that is ridiculous, though a common argument tactic.

 

[cmill]

Are you supposed to fly within 20 of a thunderstorm? Is an aggressive approach a similar violation compared to landing on a hiking trail? And you're assuming that a person is inexperienced if they think you're out of line.

PM me so I'll know which planes to avoid! With this attitude, I'd be glad to take another....

Is flying within 20nm of a thunderstorm, executing an aggressive approach, or landing off field dangerous? None of those are even violations.

With your attitude id be glad to keep you off of my plane also.

 

[dustoff17]

Is flying within 20nm of a thunderstorm, executing an aggressive approach, or landing off field dangerous? None of those are even violations.

With your attitude id be glad to keep you off of my plane also.

Didn't say it was. I was asking the question............

 

[MikeD]

Are you supposed to fly within 20 of a thunderstorm? Is an aggressive approach a similar violation compared to landing on a hiking trail? And you're assuming that a person is inexperienced if they think you're out of line.

PM me so I'll know which planes to avoid! With this attitude, I'd be glad to take another....

Here's the problem with what you're advocating though.....the whole "perceived" thing. It begets situations like these:

True story. I did have a concerned passenger Fedex a letter to my chief pilot about my crew failing to do a proper GUMP check on a 1900.

"...the props never went forward... the mixture stayed lean...."

Another... "Tale... From the 1900!!!!!!"

(for those unfamiliar)

The 1900 has a headset jack in 1C used for line checks, FAA, whatever.

Anyway, a passenger brings his own headsets and, without the crew's consent, plugs in his David Clark and listens in on the interphone and hot mic for a roughly 45 minute flight.

He then screams at the crew for discussing non-essential safety of flight issues in cruise and writes a sternly-written letter about the crew's unprofessionalism to the chief pilot.

I wasn't the crew involved but I did read the letter (had a short stint on the safety committee) and I loved the part about the crew's 'confusion' about how to deviate around a line of thunderstorms because the captain kept tweaking the tilt on the radar.

...how they weren't paying attention because the TCAS shouted "traffic! traffic!" and the crew failed to, in his estimation, drop everything else and locate that traffic.

If you were Doug in this case, how would you feel? And would you still have the "must police our own for everything and anything, real or perceived?"

 

[Timbo]

The good news is, these 'agressive approach' guys usually -eliminate- themselves sooner or later. So in a way, flying is already self policing.

As my Mom (also a pilot) used to say, "There are old pilots, and bold pilots, but there are NO old, bold pilots."

 

[ColoradoPilot]

Is flying within 20nm of a thunderstorm, executing an aggressive approach, or landing off field dangerous? None of those are even violations.

With your attitude id be glad to keep you off of my plane also.

With 20nm of a thunderstorm CAN be dangerous, depends on a lot of things. Same with the other two. But they can also be done without adding any danger to a flight. If you don't know that....