Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
The standard is guilty until proven innocent. Revoke, then appeal the revocation...in which case one must prove the revocation isn't warranted.
There is no presumption of innocence. There is no preponderance of the evidence. There is no beyond reasonable doubt. An administrative law judge may look to "substantial evidence," but only in the appeal process, which is where one first has opportunity to defend himself or herself. After the fact. The firing squad doesn't lock and load until the appeal plays out, but it's still a matter of record, and until the appeal process is done, that revocation order is in place; the pilot can't use his or her certification.
If you take it to court, a preponderance of evidence is required. All cases should have this to move forward. If not, you have a solid case. That is what lawyers are for.
The FAA has a nasty way of taking someone even if they did nothing wrong. A simple administrative letter in the file saying that the airman has been accused of doing X, and that while no evidence was found, X is a violation of the regulation...makes it sound like the airman did it, and got away with it, and simply lacked enough evidence to violate the airman. The airman who is working sees his or her career stalled, sometimes for years, and the FAA moves on to someone else. The FAA knows what it's doing, the personnel involved know they can hurt people, mess with their careers, their lives, even without any evidence at all. I've seen it first hand. More than a few times.
The FAA stopped giving those administrative letters years ago.
A few years ago a kinder, gentler FAA appeared, seeking compliance and education, but turned out to be the same old FAA, dirty and vindictive, and often made up of those who couldn't make it in the private sector. After all, I don't know of any other job openings in the industry that advertise at such a low bar that the standard is "no more than two aircraft accidents in which the airman was at fault." Good god. Most would end their carers with one...but then they can always go work for the FAA, and I don't care who says the bar is set high. It's not. It's really not. I've seen that play too many times. Say it's not so one more thime, and that's just one more time that the lie is told.
So you experience a catastrophic engine failure, you land the plane and keep everyone safe. That means you are a bad pilot because you had an accident?
The FAA is not your friend. Not my friend. Anything you say can and will be held against you, and that letter of investigation is nothing more than a fishing expedition to garner evidence to use against you. Period.
of course, but if you know of information contrary to what the FAA is claiming, please bring it forward to avoid going through a ridiculous court battle where only then is it brought forward. In fact, if you do not share this information until court, I guarantee the administrative law judge will not be happy, since it was most certainly asked of the subject whether they have anything to say.
Not everyone has six hundred thousand dollars to build a case to save their career, and not all of us can afford F Lee Baily to show up and represent us when the FAA wrongly takes emergency authority for revocation. We've seen this material before.
Again, standard of proof for a revocation is high. If the FAA is not bringing forth a case that warrants revocation, sanctions against the FAA are a real possibility. If you were to win the case, you could ask that the FAA pay for all of your lawyer fees, since this is administrative law.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/94-970.html There are also things that are automatic revocations that are just written into the rules. We all play this game when we get certificates.