FAA Pursuit of Dated Violations
#21
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,996
The purpose of the letter of investigation was never to obtain all the facts in order to dispose of the matter, nor to actually give the airman an opportunity to clear the air. It was always about seeking anything from the airman to bed against him.
This continues to be the case. One ought not respond to such a letter without having first sought legal counsel.
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.
Few airman arrive at the table with an attorney, though they ought to do so, and few retain legal counsel before responding.
Informal meetings prior to the certificate action have no forum for defense, nor are they presided by a third party. It's more akin to meeting with the school bully by the flag pole and saying "please don't beat me." There's no teacher present.
Even with retained legal counsel, the best that the airman can hope for from the attorney is the wise counsel to shut up.
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.
The matter only needs to stand up to an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) in the appeal process if the matter is to remain; it doesn't need to stand up in order to damage or destroy a career. Simply being the subject of enforcement action is costly in terms of the bank account and career progression.
#22
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.
#23
§135.63 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Each certificate holder shall keep at its principal business office or at other places approved by the Administrator, and shall make available for inspection by the Administrator the following—
(a) Each certificate holder shall keep at its principal business office or at other places approved by the Administrator, and shall make available for inspection by the Administrator the following—
§135.73 Inspections and tests.
Each certificate holder and each person employed by the certificate holder shall allow the Administrator, at any time or place, to make inspections or tests (including en route inspections) to determine the holder's compliance with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications.
Each certificate holder and each person employed by the certificate holder shall allow the Administrator, at any time or place, to make inspections or tests (including en route inspections) to determine the holder's compliance with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications.
§ 44713. Inspection and maintenance
(a) GENERAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS.—An
air carrier shall make, or cause to be made, any
inspection, repair, or maintenance of equipment
used in air transportation as required by this
part or regulations prescribed or orders issued
by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration under this part. A person operating,
inspecting, repairing, or maintaining the
equipment shall comply with those requirements,
regulations, and orders
(a) GENERAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS.—An
air carrier shall make, or cause to be made, any
inspection, repair, or maintenance of equipment
used in air transportation as required by this
part or regulations prescribed or orders issued
by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration under this part. A person operating,
inspecting, repairing, or maintaining the
equipment shall comply with those requirements,
regulations, and orders
§ 44709. Amendments, modifications, suspensions,
and revocations of certificates
(a) REINSPECTION AND REEXAMINATION.—The
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft,
aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design
organization, production certificate holder,
air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine
an airman holding a certificate issued under
section 44703 of this title.
and revocations of certificates
(a) REINSPECTION AND REEXAMINATION.—The
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft,
aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design
organization, production certificate holder,
air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine
an airman holding a certificate issued under
section 44703 of this title.
#24
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,996
JNB's statement of fact is not legal counsel, and he didnt offer it as such. He merely stated the truth (and backed it up).
Perhaps yoy will support your assertion that FAA employees have comitted a criminal act against you. You did say that, didnt you?
#25
Steal : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
#26
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,996
Nope. Lot's of different kinds of FED's. I never said FAA or Criminal Act. Have a nice day!!!
Steal : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
Steal : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
Your understanding of the definition, incidentally, is either incredibly poor, or at best deceitful. You stated previously that the FAA stole your records from "private property." By offering an alternative definition, you're now stating that the FAA merely observed those records.
You clearly meant to imply theft with the use of the word "steal," rather than inference to stealing a glance, stealing away, or stealing a base. Theft of records from private property constitutes a criminal act, whic you know very well you insinuated in your implication, and from which you are now backpeddling. This occurs when one hasnt a leg upon which to stand, as is your case.
This is an adult conversation. Check back in 20 years, should you grow up. You'll be on the ignore list.
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 257
While I completely applaud the FAA's switch to compliance vs. enforcement, I still think that the individual FSDOs willingness to enforce the rules in a locally unique fashion will remain.
Nearly every recent Office of Legal Counsel letter regarding crew rest specifically has some cri de coeur where the correspondent asks "if X is illegal why is my FSDO allowing it?" to which the FAA lawyer replies with some version of "Their FSDO, their rules."
To me, its very clear that the Office of Legal Counsel at FAA would like a lot more uniformity in the application of fairly straightforward things like rest, the fact that Enforcement and Legal Counsel meet at the Administrator (IIRC) and the Enforcement side can always say "We are doing it this way."
As long as operators see dollar signs in non-compliance with the rules and interpretations, and POIs are paid by the airplane, I don't see much hope for fair application.
Nearly every recent Office of Legal Counsel letter regarding crew rest specifically has some cri de coeur where the correspondent asks "if X is illegal why is my FSDO allowing it?" to which the FAA lawyer replies with some version of "Their FSDO, their rules."
To me, its very clear that the Office of Legal Counsel at FAA would like a lot more uniformity in the application of fairly straightforward things like rest, the fact that Enforcement and Legal Counsel meet at the Administrator (IIRC) and the Enforcement side can always say "We are doing it this way."
As long as operators see dollar signs in non-compliance with the rules and interpretations, and POIs are paid by the airplane, I don't see much hope for fair application.
#28
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,996
Cite a letter of interpretation which states or imports "their FSDO, their rules." That is contrary to FAA policy.
The Administrator has never allowed FSDO's to establish policy regarding rest for pilots.
To me, its very clear that the Office of Legal Counsel at FAA would like a lot more uniformity in the application of fairly straightforward things like rest, the fact that Enforcement and Legal Counsel meet at the Administrator (IIRC) and the Enforcement side can always say "We are doing it this way."
I have no idea what you mean by "Enforcement and Legal Counsel meet at the Administrator" but whatever it is that you're trying to say is incorrect. The office of the Chief Legal Counsel speaks on behalf of the Administrator. The FSDO works at the field level on behalf of the Administrator and does not set, nor interpret policy.
The "enforcement side" does not have the option of saying "we are doing it this way." Never has. The Administrator provides clear guidance.
Become familiar with FSIMS and 8900.1.
Operators who elect to fail to comply with the regulation are subject to enforcement action. Substantial penalties apply for failure to comply. If you're not familiar with the fines applies to operators and the magnitude of the cost, you should educate yourself. You may be shocked.
I've been involved with the issue of violations of rest policy, and in one case regarding a 121 operator who was back dating 1-in-7 24-hour rest periods, provided the documentation upon which the Administrator acted. The FAA was quite direct with the company and stopped that practice immediately.
There are no dollar signs by failing to comply with legal interpretations; legal interpretations are not regulations. They're explanations which help understand the regulation and which provide a more detailed understanding of a particular policy or aspect of the regulation. Failure to read and understand them is at the peril of the certificate holder.
#30
Sort of.
CMO staffing is (obviously) determined by the size of the airline. I know personally of one airline which was under increasing and draconian scrutiny from their CMO (co-located with airline HQ which happened to be in a very nice geographic location)...well the airline threatened to move some HQ functions and their certificate to another base (which was a decidedly NOT very nice geographic local). The CMO got in line real quick, even the line pilots saw the difference.
In this particular case, IMO the CMO was out of line to begin with, essentially implementing personal vendettas. But just goes to show that the FAA may not be as impartial as one might expect.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AUS_ATC
Hangar Talk
0
03-08-2006 06:56 PM