Letter from the Federales. Help...

[MidlifeFlyer]

You dont have to log anything except what is required to prove aeronautical experience and training required for a certificate and that which proves your currency for the type of flight you are conducting... however, whatever you do log is subject to review at the request of Big Brother.

14 CFR 61.51(i)

(i) Presentation of required documents.

(1) Persons must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate, logbook, or any other record required by this part for inspection upon a reasonable request by—

(i) The Administrator;
(ii) An authorized representative from the National Transportation Safety Board; or
(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.​

There's an interesting case out there. A CFI was involved in a gear-up and argued that he should not have to present anything - that the request was unreasonable because, among other things, a gear up is not a reportable incident so the FAA had no business investigating him.

Unfortunately, "reasonable" only means there is no undue burden in complying, not that the FAA needs to have a substantial reason for the inquiry. http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4935.PDF

I always wondered if he ever got his certificates back (they were suspended indefinitely - until he complied with the production request).

 

[MikeD]

Honestly, the best thing to do and the thing that will put this whole thing to rest quickly, will be to take the request letter they sent you, write in bright red marker "To the Administrator: go piss up a rope!", and send it VFR direct to Oklahoma City via USPS express mail.

The FAA would totally see the humor, be amused by your initiative and good nature, and this whole thing would be dropped.

 

[derg]

 

[jwp_145]

View attachment 24961

Derg that looks like the ending scene to some cheap 70s porno.

 

[MikeD]

Derg that looks like the ending scene to some cheap 70s porno.

It's an Arnie film....from the 80s

 

[Flymia]

Well going cross country to present them to that office IMO is an undue burden. If you have AOPA legal call them first before anything. Does not matter what the government says, when in doubt say " I will have to check with my attorney first." Or "I would like to speak to my attorney first." When being asked questions. Doesn't matter for what, most of the time it's never something that's going to help you.

 

[JordanD]

Well going cross country to present them to that office IMO is an undue burden. If you have AOPA legal call them first before anything. Does not matter what the government says, when in doubt say " I will have to check with my attorney first." Or "I would like to speak to my attorney first." When being asked questions. Doesn't matter for what, most of the time it's never something that's going to help you.

So what you're saying is... Better call Saul.

 

[derg]

Derg that looks like the ending scene to some cheap 70s porno.

It's really for the unspoken caption.

 

[mshunter]

Okay, I get it. They want to review your records. But such a short notice? What's to say you aren't working for a company like Dynamic, and are in a whole different part of the globe!?! There should be something you can do to extend the timeframe.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

There should be something you can do to extend the timeframe.

I think it's called "asking." One of the other alternatives "ignoring" generally doesn't work too well.

Given the circumstances of the inquiry, even the "asking" should probably be done after consultation with an attorney.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I think it's called "asking." One of the other alternatives "ignoring" generally doesn't work too well.

Given the circumstances of the inquiry, even the "asking" should probably be done after consultation with an attorney.

Dear Administrator:

YOLO!

 

[JordanD]

Okay, I get it. They want to review your records. But such a short notice? What's to say you aren't working for a company like Dynamic, and are in a whole different part of the globe!?! There should be something you can do to extend the timeframe.

I wondered that as well. Or say guys in the military, or hell, single people flying overseas weeks at a time that don't have anyone checking their mail.

 

[mshunter]

I think it's called "asking." One of the other alternatives "ignoring" generally doesn't work too well.

Given the circumstances of the inquiry, even the "asking" should probably be done after consultation with an attorney.

Ya don't say. Huh. I learned something today. Magine that.

Edit to add: I think it was you who had pointed out that someone else asked for an extension, or posted some kind of case, and te request was denied. Then you went on about how that's just the way they do it." Hard to search that stuff from a phone though.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Ya don't say. Huh. I learned something today. Magine that.

Edit to add: I think it was you who had pointed out that someone else asked for an extension, or posted some kind of case, and the request was denied. Then you went on about how that's just the way they do it." Hard to search that stuff from a phone though.

You may have misunderstood two things (a good reason legal advice is never given on forums).

I pointed out a case in response to a comment that all that should have to be shown is currency. The case was one where the pilot didn't ask for an extension; he just said he didn't have to give them anything and didn't.

I also did not say anything about how to do it. I can't. I haven't seen the letter and I haven't talked to Jordan. Asking for an extension is among a number of options I that may or may not be feasible or workable. I've been consistent in talking about generalities and saying that the Jordan should discuss exactly what to do in his situation with an attorney. Which based on a few of his later posts, he'd thankfully doing.

I hope that I've always been clear that I'm speaking in generalities and not giving anyone advice on what to do in a specific situation. If not, maybe I should start ending all my posts with:

The material in this post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary from state to state, country to country and from time to time. What may seem like minor differences in the facts can have substantially different legal consequences. You should only rely for legal advice on an attorney you have personally engaged.

 

[deadstick]

It's an Arnie film....from the 80s

I thought it was RoboCop..."I'll buy that for a dollar!"

 

[I_Money]

My wife works for the states and conducts hearing for the licensure she oversees. While it is not the federal government, and typically her licensee are not able to act under the license while they wait she has no problems with providing extensions. The only time she ever squeezed anyone I know was a gentleman with an attorney who she felt the attorney was asking to suit his schedule and not in the best interest of his client. She understands this is stressful for people, and for many of them this is their livelihood so she wants the procedure to be fair and the person not have an undue burden due to a technicality. She also loves when people have attorneys - she says it is a lot easier to deal with as they bridge the knowledge gap between the regulation and what the general public thinks. While always get a lawyer, I would not believe that the FAA wants your head off, but rather just ensuring safety for the public.