PurpleToolBox

If you didn't receive formal paperwork from the USAF, you were not violated. Don't check that box! Don't sweat this.

Trust me, I am all for people being honest on apps. I tell folks all the time to come clean and fess up, tell them the story about what you learned and why you are a better pilot.

However, in your instance, yes, something happened but you weren't formally violated and there's no reason to tattle tell on yourself.

beavf16

The addendum for UAL asks if you have ever been part of a crew investigated by the FAA, not necessarily viloated. Seemed like a workaround to the military issue. I said yes, told the story (student pilot flying)...got hired, they didn't ask about it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Flying Boxes

You were not violated, you simply made SA controller mad. HE WAS Looking to make trouble for the infidels! When did this happen? Days, weeks, or months??

It is a good story, I wouldn't mind discussing it in an interview. But it is not an FAA Investigation unless you get a letter.

rickair7777

If you did not get an LOI or other paperwork, you were not investigated.

A controller cannot investigate, or initiate an investigation...he's just an operator like you.

flensr

My last deployment, another unit had a contract or reserve pilot with "20,000+ hours worldwide" who kept trying to write up the tower for one or another imagined offense. The field we were at had 12 extremely diverse aircraft types from hand-launched UAVs to host-nation trainers to USAF-style training to... well, you name it we had it, so flexibility and an ability to follow tower instructions while flying into a field with mixed ops and training going on was the key to success. This clown finally tried to file a HATR on me when I flew a mil-standard pattern to initial while he was on a straight-in. I maintained both 500' vertical and offset laterally on the left side of his plane so we could both see each other, and he still freaked the crap out in the plane and on the radio, probably because he left his TCAS turned on while entering a VFR pattern with 5 trainers doing pattern work on 2 parallel runways, a tethered aerostat near pattern altitude, and a half-dozen helos buzzing around the base. Thing was, I'd been doing this for a decade and was my SQ stan eval chief, so his formal written HATR and complaints against me and the tower pretty much went nowhere, much to the relief of the tower controllers who did have certifications at risk.

The point being that you'll see lots of yahoos and amateur freakshows during mil ops overseas but if your chain of command backs you up then its unlikely there will be anything reported to the FAA with your name on it. Even a HATR that finds one crew clearly at fault can generally be dealt with in-house, even if the host nation pitches a fit (as long as nobody gets hurt).

Of course, a command directed Q2 or Q3 is going to need to be acknowledged on applications that ask if you've ever busted a ride or had your quals suspended. The key there is to be able to explain what happened, take ownership of the situation, be able to explain what you learned from it, and explain how what you learned will help you avoid another issue in the future.

Spike from flyi

My last job on active duty was dealing with the FAA for the Department of the Army. They would routinely send over letters with radio transcripts alleging violations by Army crew members. The standard response was to send them a letter stating that we have received their letter and the Army will address the problem. We would find out which command owned the aircraft, and send the report down to them with instructions to reply when corrective action was complete. We never told them how to handle it. The report would make its way down the chain until it got to a level where the a commander would decide what to do (yell at the pilots, take their wings, laugh it off, ..... it didn't matter to me). Then, up through the chain would come a response, saying it was handled. I would then send a letter to the FAA telling them that the Army had taken appropriate action, and that the matter was closed. Since you do not operate under an FAA certificate, they have no authority to discipline you. Your commander does, however. Each of the services have agreements with the FAA promising to operate with, "an equivalent level of safety" to the FARs. How the service does that is entirely their own business. The Army has been operating heavier than air craft since 1909. The FAA is a relatively new comer.

As to the Saudis, if they really wanted to press the issue, they would most likely go through the Department of State. This would most assuredly wind up in the trash, unless an ambassador were instructed to make this a big issue. Probably not going to amount to anything.

RNO Flyer

So this is an old thread, but it’s as close as I can find to ask this. So on a mil crew, additional crewmember pilot (not the A-code or acting as PIC) clears off to a non-primary crew position and the pilots in the seats fly out of the area. The verbiage on some company’s apps as questions along the lines of “Have you ever been part of a crew that has been investigated...”. So it seems that by being on the flight orders the pilot in the additional seat would have to answer “yes” to be truthful. With that in mind, and an explanation that from that seat there’s really no practical way to maintain SA on or do anything about navigation, is that a show stopper? Or a big deal?

navigatro

Do not even mention it unless formal action was taken by the Air Force or the FAA.

RNO Flyer

Even if the FAA files something against the callsign, is it worth mentioning if the pilot in question was basically along for the ride at that point?

Excargodog

Does a Brass Monkey call count, if you were only a Lieutenant? . And not the PIC?