Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




WinggedHussars
08-06-2017, 11:03 AM
Hello all,

I have taken employment at a relatively new non union air carrier that does not have an ASAP program.

I have not had any pilot deviations, however, mistakes happen and knowing in advance what avenues should be taken if/when something did occur seems very wise to protect my certificate.

I am aware of NASA reports but is this my only option?

Someone recommended VDRP but after reading the AC on VDRP it appears that except under very specific circumstances, VDRP does not apply to the individual airman, but to the air carrier.

Can someone clarify this?


Also, the new carrier is world wide in the broadest of senses, how are inadvertent pilot deviations handled when they occurred outside the USA by a USA pilot at a USA carrier?


PerfInit
08-06-2017, 05:36 PM
You are correct in that NASA ASRS is still available to you. VDRP is for the company only, not (you) the airman. When flying outside the US, 91.703 applies. You must comply with the rules of that "state" and ICAO Annex 2/SARPS.

The foreign version of the FAA (i.e. Transport Canada, DGAC, CAAC, etc) will be the entity that investigates PD's which occur in ICAO member states (foreign country). More than likely the case will be coordinated (through the state department) to the FAA IFO and/or your airline's FAA CMO.

WinggedHussars
08-06-2017, 09:52 PM
You are correct in that NASA ASRS is still available to you. VDRP is for the company only, not (you) the airman. When flying outside the US, 91.703 applies. You must comply with the rules of that "state" and ICAO Annex 2/SARPS.

The foreign version of the FAA (i.e. Transport Canada, DGAC, CAAC, etc) will be the entity that investigates PD's which occur in ICAO member states (foreign country). More than likely the case will be coordinated (through the state department) to the FAA IFO and/or your airline's FAA CMO.

Interesting.

So in the case of a pilot deviation in another state's airspace that got referred back to the FAA, would a NASA ASRS still apply?


JamesNoBrakes
08-06-2017, 10:23 PM
It is highly unlikely that a pilot deviation would cause certificate action, unless it was egregious and almost caused a catastrophe. Read up on Compliance Action on the FAAs website. This has taken the place of certificate action and enforcements for all but the most egregious or intentionally-reckless cases.

TiredSoul
08-07-2017, 01:43 AM
Read up on Compliance Action on the FAAs website. This has taken the place of certificate action and enforcements for all but the most egregious or intentionally-reckless cases.

Has this new and kinder approach reached all inspectors yet?
;)

PerfInit
08-07-2017, 09:49 AM
Interesting.

So in the case of a pilot deviation in another state's airspace that got referred back to the FAA, would a NASA ASRS still apply?

You can submit as many ASRS reports as desired. ASRS May not apply in foreign airspace, but that is for the legal folks to sort out. And yes, ALL ASI's receive training on the new philosophy. Assume positive intent... Nobody is perfect...

ASI215
08-12-2017, 02:23 PM
Has this new and kinder approach reached all inspectors yet?
;)

Yes the FAA has fully implemented the compliance philosophy.

Blackhawk
10-19-2017, 05:09 AM
Get a legal plan such as the one through AOPA. I don't care what anyone says, if the FAA wants to talk to you do not go in without a lawyer. They are not there to help you and I will believe the newer, kinder, gentler FAA when I see it. The same safety inspectors are there. A violation, even a minor one, is worse than a DUI in the eyes of many employers and once on your record is there for life.

JamesNoBrakes
10-19-2017, 09:52 PM
Get a legal plan such as the one through AOPA. I don't care what anyone says, if the FAA wants to talk to you do not go in without a lawyer. They are not there to help you and I will believe the newer, kinder, gentler FAA when I see it. The same safety inspectors are there. A violation, even a minor one, is worse than a DUI in the eyes of many employers and once on your record is there for life.

Following this advice may screw you over, but hopefully not...

Many of the same inspectors are not there, they are retiring left and right.

Compliance philosophy depends upon the subject working with the FAA to find the reason something happened and addressing that, rather than throwing up a wall of not talking to the FAA, which will likely make you ineligible for it. One of the criteria is that you are willing and able to talk to the FAA about it and correct it. Compliance philosophy allows for a compliance action to take the place of an enforcement action, which means no letters of investigation on record, no actions on your FAA record, and so on. The idea is extending an ASAP-like mentality/program to those outside of or not covered by ASAP.

The lawyers are probably not happy about this, because it cuts them out of most interactions, except for those that are not eligible, such as egregious non-inadvertent (premeditated) violations, usually the ones where there are several issues and people's lives were endangered in the process, pretty far removed from a simple pilot deviation.

But if you feel the better way to handle it is to have a violation on your record, by all means, don't try to go down the compliance philosophy path. Let me say this again, the FAA has a mechanism that directs them to not go down the enforcement route unless your violation was exceptionally egregious and non-inadvertent. This is pretty rare/exceptional in any kind of law/regulation enforcement in my experience.

Blackhawk
10-20-2017, 05:00 AM
Following this advice may screw you over, but hopefully not...

Many of the same inspectors are not there, they are retiring left and right.

Compliance philosophy depends upon the subject working with the FAA to find the reason something happened and addressing that, rather than throwing up a wall of not talking to the FAA, which will likely make you ineligible for it. One of the criteria is that you are willing and able to talk to the FAA about it and correct it. Compliance philosophy allows for a compliance action to take the place of an enforcement action, which means no letters of investigation on record, no actions on your FAA record, and so on. The idea is extending an ASAP-like mentality/program to those outside of or not covered by ASAP.

The lawyers are probably not happy about this, because it cuts them out of most interactions, except for those that are not eligible, such as egregious non-inadvertent (premeditated) violations, usually the ones where there are several issues and people's lives were endangered in the process, pretty far removed from a simple pilot deviation.

But if you feel the better way to handle it is to have a violation on your record, by all means, don't try to go down the compliance philosophy path. Let me say this again, the FAA has a mechanism that directs them to not go down the enforcement route unless your violation was exceptionally egregious and non-inadvertent. This is pretty rare/exceptional in any kind of law/regulation enforcement in my experience.

I'll believe that last part when I see it in action. The FAA history in this regard is not very good. I've seen too many pilots burned for being truthful and upfront with the FAA. You know that old saying. Reputations are hard to earn but easy to lose. The reputation of FAA Safety Inspectors and enforcement is not good. A few bad apples, which every FSDO seems to have, have burned too many people over the years.

PerfInit
10-20-2017, 03:02 PM
JNB said it well. I will add that another reason for the compliance philosophy is that legal is probably overloaded with “much bigger/ egregious cases”. We simply do not have the resources to pursue “small cases” anymore... To Blackhawk, your distaste for the Agency is understandable, but I believe you have a skewed perception of reality.

Blackhawk
10-20-2017, 05:52 PM
JNB said it well. I will add that another reason for the compliance philosophy is that legal is probably overloaded with “much bigger/ egregious cases”. We simply do not have the resources to pursue “small cases” anymore... To Blackhawk, your distaste for the Agency is understandable, but I believe you have a skewed perception of reality.

My perception is based on cases in the not very distant past (the last 5 years), of pilots getting violations for very minor incidents that did not impact safety at all and were made worse by the pilots being honest and forthright with the FSDOs. They are still paying for these blemishes today as there is absolutely no recourse once such an incident is in your file and it follows you forever. Like forever, forever. It never goes away. Let's not even talk about cases such as the infamous Kansas City FSDO incident or Bob Hoover's case. Pardon my skepticism.

JamesNoBrakes
10-20-2017, 08:05 PM
My perception is based on cases in the not very distant past (the last 5 years), of pilots getting violations for very minor incidents that did not impact safety at all and were made worse by the pilots being honest and forthright with the FSDOs. They are still paying for these blemishes today as there is absolutely no recourse once such an incident is in your file and it follows you forever. Like forever, forever. It never goes away. Let's not even talk about cases such as the infamous Kansas City FSDO incident or Bob Hoover's case. Pardon my skepticism.

Compliance Philosophy has only been in play for about 2 years.

JohnBurke
10-21-2017, 01:44 AM
One of the criteria is that you are willing and able to talk to the FAA about it and correct it.

Ironic.

The source of information used against an airman in enforcement action is very often statements made by the airman. Pilots are their own worst enemies. The FAA may have reports of the aircraft on scene, but frequently doesn't connect the pilot to the airplane without the pilot's statement.

Blackhawk
10-21-2017, 03:19 AM
Compliance Philosophy has only been in play for about 2 years.

It's going to take more than two years to make up for years of abuse on the part of a few bad apples within the FAA that went unchecked. It's like a cheating spouse trying to tell you they've been faithful for two years so you should trust them now. Yeah, right.

rickair7777
10-21-2017, 06:49 AM
Given the new policy, if I made an honest, minor mistake in GA today I would probably talk to them and fess up, anticipating nothing more than a debriefing and constructive feedback.

If I thought for some reason that the situation might be misconstrued as something more serious than it was, I'd get a lawyer.

Caveat: Like others have said, there's a bad history here. There are certain individual feds at my home 'drome who I would never talk to under any circumstances. Actually I suspect most of them are gone by now.

PerfInit
10-21-2017, 07:53 AM
The reality is that SAS is keeping feds VERY busy “in the office”, tied to their computers. Also, only a VERY small percentage of serious cases actually go through. A majority of cases get thrown out on some technicality and legal minutia. Aviation attorneys know how to play the game, and they play it well. So anyone that is losing sleep over this stuff is honestly missing the big picture.

JohnBurke
10-21-2017, 09:09 AM
So anyone that is losing sleep over this stuff is honestly missing the big picture.

Or has simply been around long enough to know better.

Losing sleep? No. One only loses sleep over that which one does not understand. The FAA is a known quantity.

It still tends to attract those who didn't make it in the private sector.

PerfInit
10-21-2017, 11:08 AM
Actually the agency is quite attractive for benefits, retirement and QOL. In my case, I was with a major / legacy previously. Hardly “not making it” in the private sector. Just got sick of the uncertainty...

Blackhawk
10-21-2017, 08:26 PM
The reality is that SAS is keeping feds VERY busy “in the office”, tied to their computers. Also, only a VERY small percentage of serious cases actually go through. A majority of cases get thrown out on some technicality and legal minutia. Aviation attorneys know how to play the game, and they play it well. So anyone that is losing sleep over this stuff is honestly missing the big picture.

The reality is that the FAA lawyers know how to drag it out and rack up expenses for GA pilots who can't afford it and finally cave. 2.5 years of legal fees just waiting to see a judge is quite hefty for the average Joe. Then throw in the obligatory appeal to the NTSB judge, win or lose. For the government, it's a drop in the bucket.

Again, too many people have been royally boned for minor infractions for too many years by a few FAA employees who felt the best way to improve aviation safety was to hand out suspensions to suddenly believe things have changed.

TommyDevito
10-22-2017, 01:35 PM
The reality is that the FAA lawyers know how to drag it out and rack up expenses for GA pilots who can't afford it and finally cave. 2.5 years of legal fees just waiting to see a judge is quite hefty for the average Joe. Then throw in the obligatory appeal to the NTSB judge, win or lose. For the government, it's a drop in the bucket.

Again, too many people have been royally boned for minor infractions for too many years by a few FAA employees who felt the best way to improve aviation safety was to hand out suspensions to suddenly believe things have changed.

Interesting.

So can you please cite for us a pilot enforcement that has happened within the past two years where the cooperating pilot was violated? Do you have any personal knowledge of this happening?

Blackhawk
10-22-2017, 04:34 PM
Interesting.

So can you please cite for us a pilot enforcement that has happened within the past two years where the cooperating pilot was violated? Do you have any personal knowledge of this happening?

One more time.
As with a spouse that has been cheating for years, two years of fidelity does not make for a trusting environment. Or did you not actually read my posts?
The FAA has spent years tolerating and even promoting rouge SI's who made it their life ambition to destroy and in one well-known case even drive a pilot to his death and be cited by the NTSB and the DOT IG. But hey, we've been playing nice for a couple of years. So trust us. Ummm... yeah. Right.

TommyDevito
10-22-2017, 05:06 PM
One more time.
As with a spouse that has been cheating for years, two years of fidelity does not make for a trusting environment. Or did you not actually read my posts?
The FAA has spent years tolerating and even promoting rouge SI's who made it their life ambition to destroy and in one well-known case even drive a pilot to his death and be cited by the NTSB and the DOT IG. But hey, we've been playing nice for a couple of years. So trust us. Ummm... yeah. Right.

Interesting.

It's been explained to you by others that the FAA has introduced the Compliance Philosophy and that ALL Inspectors and ALL offices are REQUIRED to use it. It's even written into the 8900.1 guidance as well as the 2150.3.

Yet you contend that a rogue inspector will just go on his own and pursue a EIR (Enforcement Investigative Report). Let me ask you this, if this rogue Inspector was to push an EIR on say a pilot deviation where the PIC is clearly cooperating, how would he do this and stay within the guidance? Can you point out in the 8900.1 guidance where he has the latitude to ignore the Compliance Philosophy and pursue an EIR?

Furthermore, the Inspector has a Supervisor (called a FLM) who must approve the EIR and issue the EIR number. Are you again telling us the supervisor will also ignore guidance and push this enforcement?

Let's go even further. The Office Manager must also approve the EIR, so will he go against stated guidance as well in this scenario?

And even further: The EIR must go to the FAA Attorney to handle this. Are you saying that all these people below him will knowingly and purposely ignore written guidance from the Administrator and that the Attorney will also knowingly and purposely ignore written guidance?

Hmmmm, seems to me if all of these people in the FAA were to knowingly and purposely ignore their guidance in handling this then the pilot in said scenario and his lawyer would have a slam dunk in getting this enforcement thrown out. Wouldn't you agree?

So bottom line is this: The compliance philosophy is written into guidance that anyone who wishes can go read. No secret gotchas, no secret avenues to screw over defenseless pilots. There are also many safeguards in place that can prevent anyone from pushing forward on a violation when there is no cause (compliant airman).

And finally, as I asked you before, if you can show us ANYONE in the past two years that has received a violation while being compliant I sure would love to see it.

Blackhawk
10-22-2017, 06:07 PM
Interesting.

It's been explained to you by others that the FAA has introduced the Compliance Philosophy and that ALL Inspectors and ALL offices are REQUIRED to use it. It's even written into the 8900.1 guidance as well as the 2150.3.

Yet you contend that a rogue inspector will just go on his own and pursue a EIR (Enforcement Investigative Report). Let me ask you this, if this rogue Inspector was to push an EIR on say a pilot deviation where the PIC is clearly cooperating, how would he do this and stay within the guidance? Can you point out in the 8900.1 guidance where he has the latitude to ignore the Compliance Philosophy and pursue an EIR?

Furthermore, the Inspector has a Supervisor (called a FLM) who must approve the EIR and issue the EIR number. Are you again telling us the supervisor will also ignore guidance and push this enforcement?

Let's go even further. The Office Manager must also approve the EIR, so will he go against stated guidance as well in this scenario?

And even further: The EIR must go to the FAA Attorney to handle this. Are you saying that all these people below him will knowingly and purposely ignore written guidance from the Administrator and that the Attorney will also knowingly and purposely ignore written guidance?

Hmmmm, seems to me if all of these people in the FAA were to knowingly and purposely ignore their guidance in handling this then the pilot in said scenario and his lawyer would have a slam dunk in getting this enforcement thrown out. Wouldn't you agree?

So bottom line is this: The compliance philosophy is written into guidance that anyone who wishes can go read. No secret gotchas, no secret avenues to screw over defenseless pilots. There are also many safeguards in place that can prevent anyone from pushing forward on a violation when there is no cause (compliant airman).

And finally, as I asked you before, if you can show us ANYONE in the past two years that has received a violation while being compliant I sure would love to see it.
What... you mean a FSDO ignoring guidance from the FAA and doing their own thing??? No way. Never happens.

Until those who attempted to be compliant in the past and were screwed by doing so have some recourse to have their records cleared I see the GA population trusting the FAA about as much as the general population trusts the IRS.

TommyDevito
10-22-2017, 06:20 PM
What... you mean a FSDO ignoring guidance from the FAA and doing their own thing??? No way. Never happens.

So you are contending that the Inspector, the supervisor, the office manager, the division manager as well as the FAA attorney will all not follow their guidance as written, in full defiance of the administrator, to push forward a violation?

Right.



Until those who attempted to be compliant in the past and were screwed by doing so have some recourse to have their records cleared I see the GA population trusting the FAA about as much as the general population trusts the IRS.

So in other words, you are clueless as to how the compliance philosophy works, you are incapable of reading the guidance that's made available to the public yet you cling to this myth that FAA Inspectors only want to ruin pilot careers and will jeopardize their own careers to do so.

Has it ever occurred to you, even momentarily, that the compliance philosophy, while based in SMS as well as "just culture", was put into place to prevent individuals from pushing forward any resemblance of an agenda and to insure fair treatment of the flying community?

And again you are totally unable to point to even one instance where the CP has failed in the past two years. Typical.

Blackhawk
10-22-2017, 08:35 PM
So you are contending that the Inspector, the supervisor, the office manager, the division manager as well as the FAA attorney will all not follow their guidance as written, in full defiance of the administrator, to push forward a violation?

Right.




So in other words, you are clueless as to how the compliance philosophy works, you are incapable of reading the guidance that's made available to the public yet you cling to this myth that FAA Inspectors only want to ruin pilot careers and will jeopardize their own careers to do so.

Has it ever occurred to you, even momentarily, that the compliance philosophy, while based in SMS as well as "just culture", was put into place to prevent individuals from pushing forward any resemblance of an agenda and to insure fair treatment of the flying community?

And again you are totally unable to point to even one instance where the CP has failed in the past two years. Typical.

Has it ever occurred to you that GA pilots have seen this crap before? That we've seen the FAA in action for years and are not about to believe some jokers that "All is well"? You keep harping on "two years". Let's talk about decades of abuse. You cheated on me for years. Sure, I'll trust you after two years of fidelity.

TommyDevito
10-23-2017, 02:45 AM
Has it ever occurred to you that GA pilots have seen this crap before?

When previously did the FAA implement a program such as the Compliance Philosophy and totally rewrite all of their guidance to insure it would be followed?




That we've seen the FAA in action for years and are not about to believe some jokers that "All is well"? You keep harping on "two years". Let's talk about decades of abuse. You cheated on me for years. Sure, I'll trust you after two years of fidelity.

OK, so you have never even cracked open the 8900.1, have probably never even seen FSIMS and I seriously doubt you've even been to faa.gov, but you have this grandeous theory of how all these FAA types will put their jobs and careers in jeopardy to ignore written guidance just to do an enforcement. Really?

And of course you're totally disregarding the posters here who have real actual working experience within the program and they have told you essentially the same thing.

And I have asked you to point out how all these people could use their written guidance to circumvent the CP process and actually get an EIR out of an office, or even better yet please produce one pilot who in the past two years was subject to a violation and received an enforcement even after being fully compliant.

And in return you launch into inane diatribes of infidelity and other nonsense.

Have a nice day.

JohnBurke
10-23-2017, 05:29 AM
OK, so you have never even cracked open the 8900.1, have probably never even seen FSIMS and I seriously doubt you've even been to faa.gov, but you have this grandeous theory of how all these FAA types will put their jobs and careers in jeopardy to ignore written guidance just to do an enforcement. Really?


I dont know if the poster to who you refer has spent much time in FSIMS and 8900.1, but I have.

All suspicion is well founded, and quite warranted.

Oh, the **** I have seen.

TommyDevito
10-23-2017, 08:10 AM
I dont know if the poster to who you refer has spent much time in FSIMS and 8900.1, but I have.

All suspicion is well founded, and quite warranted.

Oh, the **** I have seen.

Care to elaborate without the cryptic inuendo?

Blackhawk
10-24-2017, 11:45 AM
When previously did the FAA implement a program such as the Compliance Philosophy and totally rewrite all of their guidance to insure it would be followed?




OK, so you have never even cracked open the 8900.1, have probably never even seen FSIMS and I seriously doubt you've even been to faa.gov, but you have this grandeous theory of how all these FAA types will put their jobs and careers in jeopardy to ignore written guidance just to do an enforcement. Really?

And of course you're totally disregarding the posters here who have real actual working experience within the program and they have told you essentially the same thing.

And I have asked you to point out how all these people could use their written guidance to circumvent the CP process and actually get an EIR out of an office, or even better yet please produce one pilot who in the past two years was subject to a violation and received an enforcement even after being fully compliant.

And in return you launch into inane diatribes of infidelity and other nonsense.

Have a nice day.

Yes, I've been to FSIMS, faa.gov and faasafety.gov.

Again, all I hear is the last two years. What about the last few decades?

I've had safety inspectors tell me to their face that they did not care what was in an FAA order or what the FAA Chief Counsel wrote, they were doing things their way. If you didn't like it, tough. You learned to go FSDO shopping to find those who actually abided by the FAA regulations. Raising a stink would only bring undue attention to the complaining pilot.

We've seen a case where a FSDO hounded a pilot to death, was found as a contributing factor by the NTSB, then it was found by a DOT IG report that another FSDO covered things up in their investigation of the offending FSDO. What happened to those involved? They were promoted.

I know of at least one "rouge" inspector who loved to hang out at nontowered airports and violate pilots for right-hand patterns. No warning. No discussion of the FARs. Violation. Multiple, more than one pilot. Where is he now? Promoted, of course. Yes, he's one of the ones you claimed is gone, but he's still around. I'm sure he will find different ways to "do his job" and be the big sheriff.

So again, like a habitually cheating spouse pardon me if I don't suddenly believe the FAA has changed its colors after two years. Are all safety inspectors bad? Of course not. Most are great and I've had very good working relationships with many. But it has only taken a few over the years to make many of us very leery of the FAA.

Blackhawk
10-24-2017, 11:45 AM
I dont know if the poster to who you refer has spent much time in FSIMS and 8900.1, but I have.

All suspicion is well founded, and quite warranted.

Oh, the **** I have seen.

Yup. But hey, they've been good for two years. All is forgiven. We can trust them now.

JamesNoBrakes
10-24-2017, 07:10 PM
Interesting.

It's been explained to you by others that the FAA has introduced the Compliance Philosophy and that ALL Inspectors and ALL offices are REQUIRED to use it. It's even written into the 8900.1 guidance as well as the 2150.3.

Yet you contend that a rogue inspector will just go on his own and pursue a EIR (Enforcement Investigative Report). Let me ask you this, if this rogue Inspector was to push an EIR on say a pilot deviation where the PIC is clearly cooperating, how would he do this and stay within the guidance? Can you point out in the 8900.1 guidance where he has the latitude to ignore the Compliance Philosophy and pursue an EIR?

Furthermore, the Inspector has a Supervisor (called a FLM) who must approve the EIR and issue the EIR number. Are you again telling us the supervisor will also ignore guidance and push this enforcement?

Let's go even further. The Office Manager must also approve the EIR, so will he go against stated guidance as well in this scenario?

And even further: The EIR must go to the FAA Attorney to handle this. Are you saying that all these people below him will knowingly and purposely ignore written guidance from the Administrator and that the Attorney will also knowingly and purposely ignore written guidance?

Hmmmm, seems to me if all of these people in the FAA were to knowingly and purposely ignore their guidance in handling this then the pilot in said scenario and his lawyer would have a slam dunk in getting this enforcement thrown out. Wouldn't you agree?

So bottom line is this: The compliance philosophy is written into guidance that anyone who wishes can go read. No secret gotchas, no secret avenues to screw over defenseless pilots. There are also many safeguards in place that can prevent anyone from pushing forward on a violation when there is no cause (compliant airman).

And finally, as I asked you before, if you can show us ANYONE in the past two years that has received a violation while being compliant I sure would love to see it.
Unfortunately, my experience with “aviation attorneys” has been anything but. They don’t seem to read the guidance or regs, but follow a fairly standard MO, which seems to be only ignore and wait for a suspension order from the FAA attorney, which kind of screws compliance philosophy and even before that, often made things worse in the end. Maybe there are ones that are all schooled up on this, but I haven’t seen them unfortunately. I wish I could say they want to help you more than they want to get paid, but I’d expect a lot more competency than I’ve seen so far.

Blackhawk
10-24-2017, 08:16 PM
Unfortunately, my experience with “aviation attorneys” has been anything but. They don’t seem to read the guidance or regs, but follow a fairly standard MO, which seems to be only ignore and wait for a suspension order from the FAA attorney, which kind of screws compliance philosophy and even before that, often made things worse in the end. Maybe there are ones that are all schooled up on this, but I haven’t seen them unfortunately. I wish I could say they want to help you more than they want to get paid, but I’d expect a lot more competency than I’ve seen so far.

Wow. I thought it was just me.

TommyDevito
10-25-2017, 04:54 AM
Unfortunately, my experience with “aviation attorneys” has been anything but. They don’t seem to read the guidance or regs, but follow a fairly standard MO, which seems to be only ignore and wait for a suspension order from the FAA attorney, which kind of screws compliance philosophy and even before that, often made things worse in the end. Maybe there are ones that are all schooled up on this, but I haven’t seen them unfortunately. I wish I could say they want to help you more than they want to get paid, but I’d expect a lot more competency than I’ve seen so far.

Agree with you on that.

JohnBurke
11-02-2017, 08:58 PM
Yup. But hey, they've been good for two years. All is forgiven. We can trust them now.

Except, that's not the case.