You didn't mean it, but that's the parallel you drew. Entirely non-sequitur. Of course one withholds from a criminal during a crime, if one can help it.

That has NO bearing and NO similarity and NO relationship to a job interview. When you go to the interview that you requested with the company to whom you chose to apply, in an attempt to secure the job you want, it has no bearing, no similarity, and no relationship in any way, shape or form to being the victim of a crime in which the criminal is violating the law, has chosen you to victimize, and is threatening your safety, security, and possibly your life. It's an utterly ridiculous comparison.

Honesty is expected in an employee. A crime victim is not an employee of the crime, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Such a simple solution: don't work for them.

Problem solved.

Allow it? Who employs whom? As a pilot applicant, you are the beggar, not the chooser. The employer chooses whom it will hire, and the employer chooses the experience, background, qualifications, minimums, aptitude, fitness, and any other aspect targeted for that specific assignment. The employer is the chooser. When you apply for a job, you are asking to be chosen. You do not have a right to the job when you show up, hat in hand, hoping to fly that type of equipment for that employer at that wage with those benefits.

If the employer requires a type rating, then you show up with the type rating. If the employer requires that you show up in a suit, you show up in a suit. If the employer requires a first class medical, you hold it or you go home. Very simple. You don't set the terms. The employer does.

If you find it to be a low paying job and too much hassle, then don't apply. Again, problem solved.

Then seek a job as an engineer. Nobody forces you to be a pilot.

The employer doesn't choose to follow the PRIA program; this is a requirement from the FAA, and prior to that, a mandate from Congress. When the employer elects to see if they want you representing them in their hundred million dollar aircraft with two hundred paying passengers (all of whose estates shall be well represented if you screw up) and risks the future of their company on you, they take such steps as they deem necessary; you can either apply for the job knowing whats involved, or go get that engineering job back. Not really rocket science, and it's known up front.

Which has what, exactly, to do with teaching?

How does one spot an inspector across the ramp? Socks don't match.

A lot of inspectors in the field in maintenance and operations are not there on the heels of a long and fruitful career, but rather from some low or relatively mid level position. They not made the transition to inspector because it was the next logical step in their climb up the career ladder, affording greater pay and opportunity.

I had an opportunity to spend a little time with an inspector this summer. I was surprised to see him as afar afield as he was, especially where he was, but so be it. We chatted for a time, and it turned out we knew some of the same places and the same people going some time back. Small world. He incorrectly identified some regulation in the discussion, and had a misunderstanding of what he identified. I didn't seek to correct him; I'm not his employer. I happened to know another inspector in his office. Great guy, I was assured. We think very highly of him.

I happened to know the other inspector who was spoken of in such glowing terms because we fired him. He was a **** poor pilot, showed terrible judgement, and was fired from the next company where he went (I called them). He nearly killed several people, performed maintenance that should have been criminal, misrepresented himself and his qualifications, put unairworthy aircraft in service that he personally fronted and brokered, and in our case, was fired after two major safety violations on the same day (one involving an excursion off the taxiway with passengers, and the other involving an approach at night with the alerter set a thousand feet below field elevation...a non-pilot crewmember caught it and brought it to his attention...and the crew refused to fly with him once on the ground). The only word I could find to describe him, having dealt with him on several levels before he turned to the FAA, would be "incompetent." Never the less, he was a great guy and a valued co-worker, I was told.

He's far from the only one.

We could sit here all day and point to one example after another, not that different save for the wrapper. I've certainly known some good individuals in the FAA, but you're quite right. I have a fairly low opinion of the rank and file inspector at large. I've known a few very good operations inspectors, and a few very good maintenance inspectors. But only a few. I've known a LOT more who aren't fit to fix a bicycle, or fly a kite, let alone enforce others in their zeal to make sure the rest of the free world does it right.

I do support the Administrator. I believe the regulations are crucial. I follow them. I believe they were "written in blood," and that includes PRIA; much of it doesn't get codified until a loss of life garners enough attention to make it so. They're important. I'm a long time mechanic and inspector; I take safety standards quite seriously, from the calibration of tools to updated publications, proper use of advisory circulars, recency of experience and proficiency, and operation of everything form a screwdriver to a 747. What I find difficult to take seriously is the plethora of inspectors who think they know far more than they do, and who are ready to enforce what they don't know, be it an operational standard, a regulation, or an oil seep.

I am grateful for enforcement which is properly done and which serves the individual and public interest; this is important to me whether I'm flying paying passengers, or I'm a paying passenger. These standards and this enforcement is entirely necessary, provided it is properly done. There are far too many yahoos who have hired into these positions, however, to approach with an air of trust and a willingness to simply go along. While the inspector kingdom highly values a "compliant attitude," such an attitude is best carried on the heels of the well informed pilot who has sought and obtained counsel prior to writing or speaking to the FAA.