I'll take a crack at this too:
Originally Posted by
Yazzoo
A fledgling pilot with a fresh PPL should not have his entire career jeopardized because of a simple mistake that didn't even result in a loss of separation or an emergency. End of story. If it's his first offense, then no harm, no foul, let him off with a slap on the wrist. But a violation that will stay with him to the grave is a little bit excessive (yeah ok, cleared after 2 years, but you still have to check "yes")
The FAA has something like a traffic-warning or slap-on-the-wrist, it's called a warning-letter, the idea is the same, that someone shouldn't have their certificate suspended just because they violated airspace or a rule (assuming like you said, there was no loss of separation or other aggravating factor). Of course, the FAA doesn't care how the view airlines this. If they only accept pilots that have absolutely nothing negative on their records, no checkride busts, with space-shuttle type ratings and 4000 hours of mach1+ time, well that's on the industry, not the FAA. The industry makes up their own hiring criteria.
Suppose you're a 22-year-old college graduate who got caught shoplifting when you were 14, but graduated with honors and have an otherwise clean record (actual example). Should you still have that infraction held against you during a job search? Of course not.
There are some problems with that. Again, the FAA doesn't make the hiring rules for industry, that comes from industry. I believe people should have a chance to "make things right", but even in your example, arrests are held against people for a very long time, sometimes forever, some states/areas allow for no way to ever erase or "fix" the record. There are probably plenty of guys out there without arrest records that want that job, so Mr. Shoplifter is going to have to be unimaginably better than them, or accept it's going to take some time to show that he's not prone to that kind of behavior. To further obfuscate the issue, what if it was a guy that had a history of some small petty crimes but he was able to go straight and narrow after the shoplifting, shouldn't he have the same chance as your honor-student example to have it eventually "erased"? We could go on and on about the injustices of the world, but ultimately the airlines set their criteria for hiring. The purpose of the FAA is not to get pilots hired (see later).
Nobody is arguing against taking responsibility for one's actions. Instead, maybe what should become more "popular" is the application of common sense when it comes to enforcing the law
That's why it's common for the FAA to issue warnings, rather than suspend and revoke certificates for every infraction.
There are pilots whose careers have ended over an inconsequential altitude bust.
How would that be? Usually certificate revocations only happen as a result of gross negligence and egregious actions like an aerobatics show in a non-aerobatic aircraft with passengers, or flying drunk, etc.
Are you saying the company fired them? That again goes to the company.
I have a better solution. You asked about a cop giving a ticket. When you get a speeding ticket, you can get it removed from your record by taking defensive driver training. This is a fantastic system. Instead of just punishing the driver, they get the opportunity to show they have learned their lesson and *earn* a clean record through re-education. Why not have the same thing for pilots? If you bust a restricted area, mandate retraining with a CFI, get rechecked with an examiner, and have the violation expunged from the record. This should be an option for all cases like this airspace bust. It could be an add-on to the WINGS program.
While not a horrible idea, it's what the current warning-letter program is trying to accomplish, and it'll unfortunately most likely be a cold day in hell before congress lets something like you are proposing get through, with the fallout from colgan and all. Also, as mentioned, this already exists to some extent, called "remedial training", although usually reserved for things more serious than you are mentioning, where the consequences would be much greater than just a warning. It seems the real problem is how industry sees any "action" on a pilot record.
USMCFLYR, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You are an FAA employee; I am an airline pilot. Although we work together as much as possible, at the end of the day our relationship is one of cop-citizen. And when we are suspected of breaking a FAR, it becomes the relationship of cop-criminal, and we sit at opposite ends of the table. Whenever an FAA examiner sits in the jump seat, I can't wait for the flight to be over. I am a competent pilot, but when the examiner has the power to end your career over any mistake they deem significant (very subjective), it makes for a very tense environment.
There is some truth here and some stuff that is kind of out there. You've probably taken your share of checkrides and you understand better with each one what is regulatory and what is not. What meets standards and what does not. If an inspector is going to use a "mistake" to "end your career" as you put it, he has to have something that will stand up to an NTSB judge, which does not usually favor the FAA, unless the evidence is solid. Otherwise, the inspector is putting himself and his job out on the line. This is where you might need a lawyer, because if there's an unfounded allegation, you need to seek counsel.
No one should just roll-over, there's nothing wrong with using a lawyer, but one should have some idea of what a lawyer can and can not do for you. In nearly every case, they'll be happy to take your money. A lawyer might be able to make a good case for why there are mitigating factors or what you've done to correct the original problem, which can be of great help. Of course the classic reason would be when they "got the wrong guy" and have missed something important in that sense. You will know whether you did what you are being accused of though and if you go to a lawyer and tell them that "you did it" or even that "you didn't do it" and you know you did it, it's going to be a rough time, most likely the lawyer is going to tell you to to be honest with the investigators. I think this is one of the perceptions out there, that lawyers will be able to "get you off" no matter what happened. Lawyers on both sides (prosecutors and attorneys) are very pragmatic in real life, they do not like to move ahead with anything unless they are absolutely certain of it. If there's a technicality that favors either side, you can bet they will take full advantage of it, yet they have to be careful not to step out too far and make a false statement or other similar error, as it will often result in losing the case for whichever side made the error.
But yes, realize what the FAAs role is. They are responsible for certificating pilots and printing out certificates that represent proficient and safe pilots. When there's a violation, the FAA has to determine whether it was a normal human error, or whether the certificate holder is not capable of holding that certificate because they do not have the competence to do so. That is rare, but it does happen. The FAA isn't trying to establish a baseline of pilot standards for the benefit of pilots, they are doing it at the mandate of congress to protect the traveling public. In this sense, they aren't your enemy or your friend, they are the regulator, making sure things happen according to standards and comply with the regulations in place.