This is quoted from the FAA Compliance Action Decision Process that I posted a link to above.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't seek advice or counsel, and the document even says seeking counsel doesn't rule out the new compliance philosophy, in blue below. That being said, if you read the decision tree document, it is very clear that the level of cooperation is taken into account during their decision process (See the item 3b, in red below). Our pilots this week were very cooperative, but they had ALPA representation present during the debrief. I feel that this sort of wholesale change to the investigation process deserves discussion here, and that is why I've been so vocal on this thread.
I recommend that everyone take a deep look at the documents linked above, and even contact your local FSDO for clarification if you like. This is not a minor change, and it has very real implications for you should you have an issue.
And with that, I'm out. If anyone wants to talk about it further, send me a private message.
Oh, and by the way, my "Good luck with your endeavors" meant exactly that. Good luck. I don't know what your endeavors are, and I don't care. It was supposed to be a very clear signal that I'm done with the conversation, and nothing more.
14-1-2-7 PROCEDURES (I skipped 1 and 2, and started with 3 below)
3) Analyze the Event.
a) Critical thinking involving careful, objective analysis is the key to understanding the event. Analysis of each event should focus on determining the nature of the problem, the conditions under which it occurred, the controls that failed and may again in the future, and the most effective proposed corrective
action(s).
b) Before deciding on Compliance Action as the mitigation, determine if the airman/organization is proactive, cooperative, and capable of participating in effective corrective or preventive action. An inability to comply requires a more formal process of correction.
NOTE: An entity’s refusal to speak with the FAA, or the obtaining of legal counsel immediately after an event, does not automatically rule out Compliance Action. Airmen and organizations are free to exercise their rights without repercussions. An entity that complies with FAA requirements to regain and maintain compliance is considered cooperative. However, if the ASI cannot adequately determine the facts of the case, or cannot identify appropriate remediation(s) that are consented to and successfully accomplished by the involved parties, the ASI must still use due diligence on behalf of the public’s safety interest. Such due diligence may include reexamination or suspension pending compliance to determine that the certificated entity is qualified, competent, and proficient.
c) Determination must be based reasonably on observable behaviors and the facts and circumstances in each case.
1. Does the airman/organization consistently perform in a positive manner toward regulatory requirements?
2. Does the airman/organization understand or recognize its role in the deviation?
3. Does the airman/organization cooperate with FAA personnel to achieve compliance?
4. Does the airman/organization take the necessary actions to come into and maintain compliance?
5. Are there repeated failures to take corrective actions or repeated deviations?
6. Is the airman/organization noncompliant in more than one area? Does it involve multiple personnel?
