JohnBurke

It wasn't "back in the early 70's." Some of the events I could detail, which are documented, are relatively recent.

Not true.

I can think of quite a few individuals whom I know personally who wholly failed in private industry, who ended up as inspectors, and who by most accounts are quite incompetent and dangerous. Unable to make it in the private sector, they fell back to positions with the FAA where they have pressed their own wrong view of regulation, policy, and procedure.

The appeal process exists for a reason, and it's not simply to make people feel good. People survive within the FAA who don't make it in commercial industry also for a reason.

This isn't to say that everyone, or even a majority, of those working within the ranks of the FAA are bad people, or incompetent. This is addressing some cases, and I've known more than a few, that were unprofessional, and in some cases, quite dangerous. It's also irrelevant to the question of approaching the FSDO for answers on regulatory questions, which one ought not do.

I made no such assertion. Read.

I did assert, correctly so, that I was told over the desk of the head of a particular FSDO, with an attorney seated next to that individual, that I would buy his secretary roses, or that he would find a means to violate me. That happened.

It was a threat. Certainly the matter would have had to follow the same process as any other enforcement action. He didn't have anything with which to go after me at the time, but very clearly threatened to find a way to do it, as leverage for his demand that I buy his secretary one dozen red roses.

For those who don't believe that the FAA can and does go after people with no substance or a leg upon which to stand, do a little reading on Bob Hoover's battle and the financial cost and damage to his career.

When an inspector told me, as previously noted, that I was in the right and that I would eventually win on appeal, but that he might initiate enforcement action "just for spite," there was no tape recorder running, but he said it,and I heard him quite clearly. It was a threat.

We could go on about that all day, but the fact is that yes, an inspector can initiate enforcement action, and whether it's upheld or goes anywhere often doesn't stop them from trying. You also know very well, as do I, that it doesn't take an inspector much to find a reason to initiate enforcement action if he wishes to do so. The Administrator has a nasty habit of throwing things up at the wall just to see what sticks, and though the enforcement effort might lack substance, it can still be damaging and costly, and inspectors know it.

It doesn't matter. Simply being the subject of an investigation can be damaging, as can the invariable warning letter placed in one's record which states that while no evidence of wrong doing was found, xxx is still a violation of the regulation. It's a clever insinuation that follows the airman and does damage, and inspectors and attorneys know it.

All of this is well beyond the scope of this thread, but as you brought it up, I'll address it.

You're very aware of this as an inspector, are you not?

You didn't actually type that with a straight face, did you?

Let's not insult intelligence; the FAA has a long track record of takign pot shots at airmen with nowhere to go, and the FAA sometimes defends its position in the process, and sometimes bows out with a parting shot across the stern with a damaging letter for the airman anyway.

Absolutely the FAA will press for administrative action without evidence. The FAA doesn't require it until the appeal process, and the FAA may drop it at any time. The airman is presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is a key element of dealing with the administrative law that many pilots don't understand. It's not at all the same as dealing with civil or criminal law in which one is presumed innocent. Not in the least.

The beauty of the enforcement process for the inspector is that he simply initiates the process. He sets the ball in motion. Others take it from there. While the regional legal counsel may elect not to defend the matter, at that stage, it can already have become very damaging and very expensive to the airman.

The "pilots' bill of rights" exists for a reason, not the least of which is that each of the "rights" enumerated the developments thus far have been widely trampled in the past. Just as regulatory developments often follow on the heels of bloodshed, pilot protections follow the long patter of harassment, intimidation, and persecution by various FAA employees who game the system. Guilty until proven innocent; the airman is well advised to take that to heart.

You already have spoken to my experience: you've dismissed it and gone so far as to tell me that my assertions carry no weight and are incorrect. That's untrue, of course, but you are correct in that you can't speak to my experience.

Yes, it's taken lightly in many cases at the FSDO level, because the FSDO simply initiates the action. After that it passes to the region legal counsel, and by then, the damage can already be done. Taking it lightly at the FSDO level, especially when there's no basis for the action in the first place, can do significant damage to one's career, as well as one's finances, and yet it happens all the time.

Do you recall the experience of the airline pilot in Alaska several years ago, who commented in an article that on departure he overflew his son's grave, and always said a silent prayer for his son? Touching, human. The FAA sought emergency revocation of his medical certificate, citing mental issues, saying that the pilot was unnecessarily grieving well after his son's death and therefore not fit to fly. The pilot won, eventually, but at great expense to bank account and reputation. Not an isolated case, unfortunately.

The FSDO administers the regulation at the grassroots level. It's not the place to seek clarification of the regulation, particularly as the understanding of the regulation among inspectors varies so widely, even with the same FSDO, and certainly FSDO to FSDO. The FSDO level is not authorized to interpret regulation, and any advice, insight, or counsel received at the FSDO level is neither defensible nor authoritative.

One can never defend one's self by saying "but the FSDO told me so." It won't work. Accordingly, seeking insight and information at the FSDO level is no more beneficial than seeking it on a web forum such as this, or asking the guy in the hangar next door.