Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
The FSDO applies the regulations insofar as enforcement, but one cannot go to the FSDO and ask for an interpretation of the regulation, or even an explanation that is legally binding. If the FSDO provides an answer which is incorrect, it is not legally defensible, and it's not uncommon at all for a pilot to be told one thing at one FSDO, and that information be contradicted at another.
To seek an understanding of the regulation, one needs to look at the regulation, the Federal Register preambles, and at the FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation.
I have met a LOT of inspectors with a poor understanding of the regulation, and some with a gross misunderstanding of the regulation. I have also met inspectors with chips on their shoulders or vendettas who enforced the regulation according to their personal biases, from the inspector who once told me "you may be right, but I may violate you out of spite," to the head of a FSDO who called me into his office and told me to buy his secretary a dozen red roses, or he would find a way to take certificate action. One may well expect them to apply it incorrectly, as I have seen. In the case of enforcement, that puts the onus on the pilot to seek relief through the appeal process.
The FSDO level should give no confidence in seeking counsel, which is best had from a dedicated study of the regulation, Federal Register preambles, and FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations, and where any doubt exists at all, counsel with a qualified aviation attorney.
If it was that rampant, which I've never seen any indication of (but I wasn't there back in the early 70s), you should have documented it. People would have been fired left and right for that kind of behavior, or at least these days, they would. Your assertions that they can just "violate you" or what you are "told" has no weight is incorrect. NTSB judges hold the FAA accountable and require significant proof and evidence, not to mention FAA counsel will not support something that has no evidence. They aren't so stupid as to bring a case forward that has no evidence. Really, like any prosecutor, they want to bring something forward when the evidence is overwhelming, so A), they don't have to go to court and B), if the other side still doesn't see the light, they are confident they will win. Sometimes new developments come out in court, rather than before, where it could have been settled, but if they were bringing cases forward that had no proof, they would be opening themselves up to investigations. It's rare that a prosecutor would wager their reputation on a case with no evidence and likewise a defense attorney will advise their client when it looks like the evidence is overwhelming. They'll fight if you tell them to, but it's often against their judgement. They'll tell you if they think they can win the case, and if they think that, they'll go at it full bore. That's because they have some form of evidence, or some kind of gross technicality to get the charges thrown out. Maybe you've seen this taken lightly at the FSDO level, I can't speak to your experience. I can say it's taken very seriously at the regional level and with counsel. They are the ones that decide if these cases go forward.