Possible Pilot Deviation
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2016
Position: F/O Lear 35 & 60
Posts: 81
Do yourself a favor and next time (hopefully there won't be a next time)DO NOT call any number upon landing until you've called an attorney, it is not mandatory to call the number they give you. I repeat, it is not mandatory that you call the number they give to you. Everything you say can and will be used against you. AOPA offers free legal advice if your a member.
#23
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
It ought to be shocking, if it's not, that flight standards harasses and even attempts to take enforcement action against their own agency personnel from flight check.
#24
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Making a move to the FAA from the maintenance sector, which is largely underpaid and lacks many of the regulatory protections that pilots have, is a step up, for many. After all, the privilege to sit in an air conditioned office and violate pilots for issues, rather than get burned, cut and run through with safety wire is a plus. The FAA offers stability, benefits, retirement, things that are fleeting at best in the private sector.
Altruism is seldom the motivating factor.
#25
Some of the worst flight inspectors we've had (both personal experience in my time there and from word of mouth) are former ASIs.
Like most other places - there are good and bad.
The stories from the street reflect both ends of the spectrum.
Ramp checks for example. There are **stories** of ASIs who have applied to be flight inspectors specifically searching out and 'harassing' flight check aircrews as you say. Some crews in the past have even avoided certain locations for this reason. I recently had a fellow pilot question my schedule (and decision) to land at the airfield where our FSDO/POI is located.
Other side of the coin states that Flight Inspection aircraft/aircrew would not be ramp checked due to the professional courtesy that you allude too. We fly under the same rules P91/135 (with exemptions) that everyone does. We are a safe check as we are well organized IAW the regs and have all of our ducks in row should an inspector want to knock off one of his required checks.
My personal experience is somewhere in between. I've not been harassed (and parked within eye shot of the FSDO office at numerous airfields) and I have been ramp checked - not grilled over an open flame - but asked to produce the regular documentation that any pilot might be required to produce. So......so far, so good for me.
I'd say if Flight Check has a bone to pick to anyone it is more likely the relationship between ATC and Flight Check. We are more than likely a fly in their ointment when performing our duties. We coordinate, we brief, we educate, we have many numerous former ATC'ers who are now flight inspectors, and it is still sometimes a little of a dogfight getting the work done - - but we get it done because we are both professionals with a job to do.
And btw - I do this job because I want too. If that changes in time then I'll move on. But for numerous personal and professional reasons, I have chosen this profession and they have accepted me. Altruistic? I have a history of service related jobs. I like stability when deciding on a second career. I have a skill set that is marketable and I chose where to market it. I left the most exciting flying I'll probably ever experience 6 years ago. My second career meets my current requirements for job security, actual flying/professional challenges, pay/benefits, QOL, and work colleagues/environment to a large degree.
Others opinions and requirements may vary.
#27
Some of the best flight inspectors we have are former ASIs.
Some of the worst flight inspectors we've had (both personal experience in my time there and from word of mouth) are former ASIs.
Like most other places - there are good and bad.
The stories from the street reflect both ends of the spectrum.
Ramp checks for example. There are **stories** of ASIs who have applied to be flight inspectors specifically searching out and 'harassing' flight check aircrews as you say. Some crews in the past have even avoided certain locations for this reason. I recently had a fellow pilot question my schedule (and decision) to land at the airfield where our FSDO/POI is located.
Other side of the coin states that Flight Inspection aircraft/aircrew would not be ramp checked due to the professional courtesy that you allude too. We fly under the same rules P91/135 (with exemptions) that everyone does. We are a safe check as we are well organized IAW the regs and have all of our ducks in row should an inspector want to knock off one of his required checks.
My personal experience is somewhere in between. I've not been harassed (and parked within eye shot of the FSDO office at numerous airfields) and I have been ramp checked - not grilled over an open flame - but asked to produce the regular documentation that any pilot might be required to produce. So......so far, so good for me.
I'd say if Flight Check has a bone to pick to anyone it is more likely the relationship between ATC and Flight Check. We are more than likely a fly in their ointment when performing our duties. We coordinate, we brief, we educate, we have many numerous former ATC'ers who are now flight inspectors, and it is still sometimes a little of a dogfight getting the work done - - but we get it done because we are both professionals with a job to do.
And btw - I do this job because I want too. If that changes in time then I'll move on. But for numerous personal and professional reasons, I have chosen this profession and they have accepted me. Altruistic? I have a history of service related jobs. I like stability when deciding on a second career. I have a skill set that is marketable and I chose where to market it. I left the most exciting flying I'll probably ever experience 6 years ago. My second career meets my current requirements for job security, actual flying/professional challenges, pay/benefits, QOL, and work colleagues/environment to a large degree.
Others opinions and requirements may vary.
Some of the worst flight inspectors we've had (both personal experience in my time there and from word of mouth) are former ASIs.
Like most other places - there are good and bad.
The stories from the street reflect both ends of the spectrum.
Ramp checks for example. There are **stories** of ASIs who have applied to be flight inspectors specifically searching out and 'harassing' flight check aircrews as you say. Some crews in the past have even avoided certain locations for this reason. I recently had a fellow pilot question my schedule (and decision) to land at the airfield where our FSDO/POI is located.
Other side of the coin states that Flight Inspection aircraft/aircrew would not be ramp checked due to the professional courtesy that you allude too. We fly under the same rules P91/135 (with exemptions) that everyone does. We are a safe check as we are well organized IAW the regs and have all of our ducks in row should an inspector want to knock off one of his required checks.
My personal experience is somewhere in between. I've not been harassed (and parked within eye shot of the FSDO office at numerous airfields) and I have been ramp checked - not grilled over an open flame - but asked to produce the regular documentation that any pilot might be required to produce. So......so far, so good for me.
I'd say if Flight Check has a bone to pick to anyone it is more likely the relationship between ATC and Flight Check. We are more than likely a fly in their ointment when performing our duties. We coordinate, we brief, we educate, we have many numerous former ATC'ers who are now flight inspectors, and it is still sometimes a little of a dogfight getting the work done - - but we get it done because we are both professionals with a job to do.
And btw - I do this job because I want too. If that changes in time then I'll move on. But for numerous personal and professional reasons, I have chosen this profession and they have accepted me. Altruistic? I have a history of service related jobs. I like stability when deciding on a second career. I have a skill set that is marketable and I chose where to market it. I left the most exciting flying I'll probably ever experience 6 years ago. My second career meets my current requirements for job security, actual flying/professional challenges, pay/benefits, QOL, and work colleagues/environment to a large degree.
Others opinions and requirements may vary.
I moved from the airlines to the FAA into Tech Ops. I worked overhaul hangar, line hangar, and line maintenance in international and cargo ops (20 years total). It was long enough to earn a (frozen now) pension.
I decided to not cross the picket line and move on to the FAA. Not being a veteran, it was very difficult to get into a FSDO at the time. I took the Tech Ops route. I have now been able to move into the AVS LOB.
I love what I do and would not go back. I do miss kicking that 747-200F out to Tokyo after an A-Check, or getting the ship ready to go while kids are pressed against the terminal glass watching me and my crew.
Like USMCFLYR, I have many options in life with my experience and education. I choose this now.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
#28
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Window Seat
Posts: 1,430
This is not the case... the FAA people were pursuing certificate actions based on the title strips and the ASRS people put a stop to that due to it being contrary to the nature and intent of the ASRS program. The title strip is no longer admissible evidence.
#29
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
The issue isn't the Administrator using the title strip as evidence; the FAA is prohibited against pursuing enforcement action based on discovery via ASRS; the title strip is fair game for that discovery. The FAA can't initiate enforcement action based on the body of the report, but if a report title contains adequate data to tip off the FAA to a violation, there is no such prohibition.
#30
Do yourself a favor and next time (hopefully there won't be a next time)DO NOT call any number upon landing until you've called an attorney, it is not mandatory to call the number they give you. I repeat, it is not mandatory that you call the number they give to you. Everything you say can and will be used against you. AOPA offers free legal advice if your a member.
just my .02 worth
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post