HEY! I did see a couple of the approach lights on the MALSR out today at KMDH - - - so as far as being ALL - SEEING GIANTS :p)
Good solid ILS btw for all you southern IL people.

As for the thread still - - I still think post #3 about says it all.
Of course I'm not in the stove-pipe that the OP (or his buddy) are worrying about - - so that is all good. Not my ball, not my game.

Who, the NTSB judge? What are you talking about? Do you even know? FAA lawyers are the ones that bring proposed fines/penalties against pilots for violations, although far less with compliance philosophy these days than in past years. As with anyone that deals with the law/court, they don't want to send out notices of proposed action unless they have a case they think they can win in court, and like most lawyers, they really do not want to go to court in the first place. They will turn down cases if they don't think they can win. There are many situations where we (as the FAA) are pretty sure something happened contrary to regulations, but unless the evidence exists, it dies and goes away because there's nowhere it can go if it's not supported by evidence. It's nothing anyone I work with gets all bent out of shape about. Have there been a few bad apples? I'm sure there have and I would encourage anyone to report them, because it makes it harder for us to do our job in the end if someone is trying to screw someone over for no reason or is not acting like a professional. The job is to protect the flying public and take appropriate action if the public is endangered or the pilot is a danger to themselves. I think we've done a little better job of that in the last couple (2) years, extending the compliance philosophy and "fix it" non-punitive safety-culture for inadvertent mistakes.

Wrong!!! I got Feds all over my $h!t. Stealing records from my private property. I guess you don't know everything!!!!!

They dont have to go to court. Administrative law. Guilty until proven innocent. They dont need to defend their action until the airman seeks appeal. Convicted first, then tried. You know that.

Only after they've already taken action does the airman get to mount a legal defense. Any letters, inquiries, hearings, or informal calls or meetings leading up to that are not for the airman to defend himself, give evidence, or make his case. Those exist only to obtain information to use againt the airman. You know this, also.

Despite any policy of cooperation, the underlying belly of the beast remains unchanged. The FAA has a long history of vigorously pursuing actions that are neither tenable or legal, or ultimately defensible, yet they do.

As an inspector told me many years ago; "you are right and will eventually win, but I may do it to you just for spite."

I know; that's unheard of i your world, and everyone i your office has matching socks.

Not.

They dont have to go to court. Administrative law. Guilty until proven innocent. They dont need to defend their action until the airman seeks appeal. Convicted first, then tried. You know that.

Only after they've already taken action does the airman get to mount a legal defense. Any letters, inquiries, hearings, or informal calls or meetings leading up to that are not for the airman to defend himself, give evidence, or make his case. Those exist only to obtain information to use againt the airman. You know this, also.

Despite any policy of cooperation, the underlying belly of the beast remains unchanged. The FAA has a long history of vigorously pursuing actions that are neither tenable or legal, or ultimately defensible, yet they do.

As an inspector told me many years ago; "you are right and will eventually win, but I may do it to you just for spite."

I know; that's unheard of in your world, and everyone in your office has matching socks.

Not.

Nailed it!!! Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!!

James, those of us who have been around a while know that you're one of the good guys, and mean what you say.

But those of us who have been around a while have also observed all manner of federal stunts and misbehavior, if not to ourselves, then to other pilots. I truly hope the compliance philosophy sticks, and culture shifts. But you'll have to pardon us for taking a wait-and-see approach.

I'm glad I'm the hell out of 91/135 though...at least in 121 the airlines will stand up to some of the silly horse manure that the some feds might otherwise try to pull.

Actually, there's a dramatic dropoff in enforcement cases within flight standards. Compared to just 2 years ago, it's down something like 90%, due to compliance philosophy. This is a good thing and a pretty dramatic change in the "nature of the beast". In fact, it's hard to train new people to do these reports, because they are a rarity now. Another good thing about this is that no "letters of investigation" go into the airman's file anymore, assuming the situation meets the criteria (as in not egregiously disregarding rules or premeditated planning to break them).

I'm not sure what you mean by "only once they've taken action", even back when enforcements were more common, if the airman did not meet with the inspector, their first notice of action would a proposed penalty, suspension, etc. Then they'd meet with the lawyer in an "informal" to try and wheel and deal, bring up new evidence, invalidate other evidence, etc. This is long before appeal from an administrative judge and long before any "final action/order" has taken place. Contrary to folklore, it's very hard to "take" someone's certificate. Even "emergency" suspensions are not fast and they are usually only the result of some egregious activity, like running drugs or widespread illicit/illegal behavior within an organization.

Although you are correct that if the airman chose to bring forth incriminating evidence, it would be used against them, ultimately any case has to be able to stand up to an NTSB judge, and they are infamous for scrutinizing the FAA and kicking out cases (and making fools of the FAA lawyers) that do not hold up. If something is learned before it gets to this point, which is usually way down the road, the case gets dropped.

I know you've had bad experiences John, in the past. I think that today with communication, visibility and accountability what they are, your situations are a thing of the past. An inspector simply can't "get away" with pulling stunts like that and if they did, they'd be easy prey for lawsuits and HR action (as in termination). I don't think this is just in my walk of life, but in many others these days as well. Things that were easily covered up or hidden are not these days.

Is your "private property" a 135 or 121 facility (or other part that is open to inspection)? If so, it is open to inspection from the FAA at all hours. You can own an FBO or building, but if you are operating 135, 141, 129, or under other parts, it's not considered "your private property" as far as FAA inspection. If things were stolen/taken, then that's an issue, if copies were made, then it might be different. If none of this matches, then you might have a pretty good case for a lawsuit. Any decent lawyer would jump at the chance for a solid case.

Not so fast. Your manner of speaking sounds youthful and suspect ("I got Feds all over my $h!t.").

Your assertion bears no description, account, or basis for reference. Your statement that federal employees have stolen "records" from "my private property" strains at credibility, especially if you're talking about the FAA, for a number of reasons. Further, it provides no information.

Under what circumstances did federal employees steal your records? What records? From what private property? You've introduced it. Now explain it. This should be interesting.