New FAA strategy... Maybe?

Blackhawk said:
Having dealt first hand with the FAA this is my point. It is one thing to be cooperative when you have an ASAP program in place backed by ALPA and hopefully airline management. It is something else entirely to be trusting of the FAA when you are standing by yourself.

My example. I was very trusting of the FAA. I worked with several FSDOs through the FAAST program. I was often used by a FSDO to train pilots for 709 rides or for training in lieu of 709 rides. I gave seminars and classes in cooperation with the FSDO. It was the "newer, gentler FAA".
I changed locations and came into contact with a new FSDO. Initially the safety inspectors I met there were like those at other locations. Then it happened.
I won't go into the details, but I was giving flight instruction at a quiet, non-towered airport. One sleepy day I did two things. The first was a bone head move. One of those LTC Nicholson moments from the end of the "Bridge at the River Kwai" when you go "What did I just do." No harm, no one or thing put in danger, no one even around (or so I thought). I immediately told myself, "Self, don't do that again."
The second thing I did could technically be viewed as a violation as well, but I felt there were extenuating circumstances that warranted a deviation from FAA procedures. Again, no one put in danger and, I thought, no one around.
Someone was there, however, and reported me to the FAA. I was called in "for a chat". I was told nothing would probably come of it. Since I was a CFI they might ask me to give a class on the events as a learning tool, but that was it. If I wanted a lawyer I could bring one. I called AOPA legal and explained to them what happened. They said I could bring a lawyer, but the entire thing was pretty minor. Worst case I might get a letter in my file for a few years. So, thinking this was the newer, nicer FAA I'd been told about I went without a lawyer and decided to cooperate. Big, big mistake.
There were three safety inspectors. Two I knew and they were sympathetic. They commented that the bone head mistake was a good teaching event, while the second thing I did they felt they would have done the same thing. The other safety inspector? Well, let's just say he felt differently.
He was extremely confrontational, demeaning and belligerent. I was caught off guard and the other two safety inspectors started to become uncomfortable. At one point I really wanted to reach over and punch the guy out, but remained calm and polite.
I was told at the end of the meeting that I would be asked to give a class and that would be the extent of things. Several weeks went by. I called one my friends at the FSDO and received a shock. The safety inspector had recommended certification action against me and everything I said in that meeting was being used against me. Too late I got legal representation.
When I got the certification notice I was once more shocked. It recommended a 45 day suspension and the description of the meeting was nothing like I remembered. It made me out to be a real jerk. I immediately sent my two friends from the FSDO emails apologizing for my behavior at the meeting as I did not realize I was being a confrontational. Both called me back instead of emailing me. They said the safety Inspector's characterization of the meeting was false. I was extremely cooperative and polite in the face of his belligerence. Unfortunately neither was willing to put that in writing unless my lawyer subpoenaed them.
So now I have a lawyer. Things go on for 2 1/2 years. In the interim, at one point, the FAA lawyer tells my lawyer that this whole thing is kind of silly. Would I be willing to give a class on this as a learning tool and call it even? Of course I accepted. Months go by. My lawyer asks the FAA lawyer when I can give the class and is told by the FAA lawyer that he has been instructed to take the deal off the table. It was not in writing, so too bad.
Finally we get to the point where we can see a judge and my lawyer tells me more good news. The FAA delay tactics have chewed up my free AOPA legal insurance. Anything forward would be out of my pocket. Best case- we win and the FAA does not appeal to the NTSB (fat chance), I'm in the whole tens of thousands of dollars. I ask him to get the best deal he can.
It's reduced to a 15 day suspension. Now comes the really good part. The FAA loses my certificates. Since I surrendered them I can't fly until I get them back. The FAA finally finds them and returns them to me.... at the 45 day point.

So if people want to say I'm crazy, paranoid, not taking the FAA at their word, so be it. I will continue to recommend to pilots that if they go to the FAA without legal protection (which I consider ASAP to be), they are a fool
Click to expand...

And of course the FAA knows it would not be worth your dollar to sue for civil damages.
 
Blackhawk said:
Having dealt first hand with the FAA this is my point. It is one thing to be cooperative when you have an ASAP program in place backed by ALPA and hopefully airline management. It is something else entirely to be trusting of the FAA when you are standing by yourself.

My example.....

So if people want to say I'm crazy, paranoid, not taking the FAA at their word, so be it. I will continue to recommend to pilots that if they go to the FAA without legal protection (which I consider ASAP to be), they are a fool
Click to expand...

I had a similar run in with a FSDO inspector and I have since held to the rule that I do not speak to Feds about anything having to do with aviation (I am still polite and will gladly discuss sports, weather, ect).

IMHO, this reputation of FSDO inspectors is also a large part of the reason that the FAA is having a serious recruitment problem. In addition to many other drawbacks of the job (rarely ever flying, mediocre pay, ect.) anyone who wants to become an inspector has to accept becoming a pariah in the eyes of a large portion of the pilot community. I honestly believe that the vast majority of Feds are good guys who aren't out to burn other pilots, but unless I know a guy very well, or am obligated to by law, I don't speak to him.
 
Last edited:
PhilosopherPilot said:
I don't feel that it's a personal attack. It is just frustrating to try to inform people about a major positive change and watch it be undermined intentionally. You do realize that if you interact with an inspector the way you suggest you might get a worse result, right? Their discretion is largely dependent upon whether the pilot is compliant and receptive to training/criticism. If you appear to dig in and be obstinate, I promise you you'll get dealt with more harshly. But more power to you buddy. You'll need that AOPA attorney.

The same goes at any airline as well. Part of the ASAP process is being able to complete corrective action. If you don't participate openly with corrective action/training, you may face enforcement action or company discipline even within ASAP.
Click to expand...

What you're trying to do is akin to explaining to a minority group that prosecutors are, in fact, there to fairly bring charges when they are legitimate and that police officers are simply an extension of that. If you're just truthful and polite with police officers about honest infractions, you'll be let off the hook with a warning. Additionally, even though it happened in the past, prosecutors will never over prosecute now in this Brave New World.

You shouldn't be surprised that there's pushback to this great news.
 
jtrain609 said:
What you're trying to do is akin to explaining to a minority group that prosecutors are, in fact, there to fairly bring charges when they are legitimate and that police officers are simply an extension of that. If you're just truthful and polite with police officers about honest infractions, you'll be let off the hook with a warning. Additionally, even though it happened in the past, prosecutors will never over prosecute now in this Brave New World.

You shouldn't be surprised that there's pushback to this great news.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly the same, and you know it. But I understand the pushback. Either way, I don't have a dog in the fight. You guys can read the new compliance philosophy document yourselves.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
It's not exactly the same, and you know it. But I understand the pushback. Either way, I don't have a dog in the fight. You guys can read the new compliance philosophy document yourselves.
Click to expand...

KLB said:
A recent interpretation of the "rolling rest rule"

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/data/interps/2015/Orellana - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf

POI's have been turning a blind eye to this for years.
Click to expand...

Here it is again, and why guys have no faith in this process. This was published less than a week ago.

The proof is in the pudding.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
It's not exactly the same, and you know it. But I understand the pushback. Either way, I don't have a dog in the fight. You guys can read the new compliance philosophy document yourselves.
Click to expand...
Again, you don't get it. We aren't "pushing back". We aren't disagreeing with you. We (or at least I), hope nothing more than for you to prove that we are wrong. You need to understand that "compliance philosophy memos" are worth about as much as toilet paper and what you wipe them with.
I've been in the flying business for over 30 years. I've seen different reiteration of the "friendly FAA" several times. I'm going to take it with a grain of salt until I see and touch something substantive.
 
Blackhawk said:
Again, you don't get it. We aren't "pushing back". We aren't disagreeing with you. We (or at least I), hope nothing more than for you to prove that we are wrong. You need to understand that "compliance philosophy memos" are worth about as much as toilet paper and what you wipe them with.
I've been in the flying business for over 30 years. I've seen different reiteration of the "friendly FAA" several times. I'm going to take it with a grain of salt until I see and touch something substantive.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. Good luck in your endeavors.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Oh, I get it. Good luck in your endeavors.
Click to expand...
Now you're acting like an ass. What endeavors would that be? What do you assume to know about me and what I want to do with my future based upon what I wrote? Again, I did not disagree with you or tell you that you were wrong. Almost everyone told you that in the part 91 world you are being absolutely naïve. Yet somehow we are a bunch of jerks. Seriously???
 
Blackhawk said:
Now you're acting like an ass. What endeavors would that be? What do you assume to know about me and what I want to do with my future based upon what I wrote? Again, I did not disagree with you or tell you that you were wrong. Almost everyone told you that in the part 91 world you are being absolutely naïve. Yet somehow we are a bunch of jerks. Seriously???
Click to expand...

So saying good luck makes me an ass?

Good night sir.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
So saying good luck makes me an ass?

Good night sir.
Click to expand...
No, you're obviously taking what is written personally. No one on this thread has written anything that personally attacked you. No one has written that you are wrong. We merely pointed out that you were being naïve and taking the FAA at their word without several years of actual action on their part showing that they have changed. I've given you actual examples of what the FAA has done in the past, both to me and to others. How they have destroyed people's lives and even driven them to the point of death according to the NTSB. You're response? Silence. No response. This time the FAA really means it. I guess you and others are willing to lap it up but I and others are a little more skeptic.
 
Blackhawk said:
No, you're obviously taking what is written personally. No one on this thread has written anything that personally attacked you. No one has written that you are wrong. We merely pointed out that you were being naïve and taking the FAA at their word without several years of actual action on their part showing that they have changed. I've given you actual examples of what the FAA has done in the past, both to me and to others. How they have destroyed people's lives and even driven them to the point of death according to the NTSB. You're response? Silence. No response. This time the FAA really means it. I guess you and others are willing to lap it up but I and others are a little more skeptic.
Click to expand...

I'm not silent. You all have experiences from years ago. This is a recent change. Forgive me for taking it a bit personally when I have seen the inspectors discussing the change, been in more than one meeting with FAA people explaining the change, then seen it first hand in an ASAP meeting having a very good result for two crews at my airline. If you were standing in a rainstorm and people tried to tell you that it wasn't raining you might take that personally too.

If this were just a memo, or just one dude at the FAA pushing the change, I would definitely feel the same way you do. And make no mistake, I understand that there will be inspectors who are slow to adapt, and there will be missteps. I hope that no one at the non-121 carriers ever gets screwed again, but I know that isn't realistic.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Nah, that does my sound like him.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is the way he is starting to sound to me and others. His last response was pretty much along those lines. Again, I and others have never personally attack him or even said he was wrong. But he and you somehow think we have. We are just saying that until we see something substantial from the FAA we are going to view any memos from the FAA with a good deal of skepticism.
 
Blackhawk said:
Actually, that is the way he is starting to sound to me and others. His last response was pretty much along those lines. Again, I and others have never personally attack him or even said he was wrong. But he and you somehow think we have. We are just saying that until we see something substantial from the FAA we are going to view any memos from the FAA with a good deal of skepticism.
Click to expand...

I said that I understand your position, and wished you good luck. And by that I meant, "Fine, I have nothing to add to this conversation." Then you start calling names.

Let's just let it go, and sleep it off.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm not silent. You all have experiences from years ago. This is a recent change. Forgive me for taking it a bit personally when I have seen the inspectors discussing the change, been in more than one meeting with FAA people explaining the change, then seen it first hand in an ASAP meeting having a very good result for two crews at my airline. If you were standing in a rainstorm and people tried to tell you that it wasn't raining you might take that personally too.

If this were just a memo, or just one dude at the FAA pushing the change, I would definitely feel the same way you do. And make no mistake, I understand that there will be inspectors who are slow to adapt, and there will be missteps. I hope that no one at the non-121 carriers ever gets screwed again, but I know that isn't realistic.
Click to expand...

Ok, so it's happening at JetBlue. Let me know when it happens elsewhere to include GA. So are you able to guarantee this is the case? Willing to post your name and address online and guarantee to GA pilots that they have nothing to worry about in the future? Again, no one, I repeat, no one has attacked you. But somehow you and ATN_PILOT interpret this as a personal attack. It comes from people who have had dealings with the "new and improved" FAA and are skeptical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top