Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-25-2017, 06:16 PM   #21  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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).
In the past, agents of the Administrator used letters of investigation and warning letters punitively, knowing that the LOI or the warning, while not representative of wrong doing, could damage or destroy a career. I've seen it, and I've seen the threat of it.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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.
The first opportunity for defense is the appeal process. Prior to that, every informal meeting, letter, call, is for the purpose of gathering material to use against the airman. After the airman has received enforcement action, he may appeal.

Few airman arrive at the table with an attorney, though they ought to do so, and few retain legal counsel before responding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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.
Egregious alleged or insinuated behavior. Convicted, then tried. One may appeal the revocation after the revocation. That is the first forum for defense.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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 Miranda warning applies to police, in criminal cases, but not to inspectors in administrative cases. Never the less, anything the airman says or writes can and will be used against him. The airman is accused of flying low over a beach. Someone on the beach saw a blue and white Cessna, someone snapped a picture of the registration number. The FAA knows the airplane was there, but it's the pilot who puts himself in the airplane when he responds with a letter explaining the situation. He states that he was at a legal distance and altitude, that he wants to comply, that he's terribly sorry for the confusion, but it's his admission that he was there in the first place that gives the inspector what he wanted to finish his report and recommend enforcement action. A successful letter of investigation.

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.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2017, 04:05 AM   #22  
Line Holder
 
AirOverTheLog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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.
Are you a lawyer? I am NOT a lawyer. I won't be giving legal advice on an open public forum b/c i'm not a lawyer !!!
AirOverTheLog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2017, 10:27 PM   #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirOverTheLog View Post
Are you a lawyer? I am NOT a lawyer. I won't be giving legal advice on an open public forum b/c i'm not a lawyer !!!
No lawyer, I'm just aware of these regulations:

Quote:
§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—
Quote:
§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.
Quote:
§ 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
Quote:
§ 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.
Not an all-inclusive list, just a few off the top of my head...I'm not giving legal advice BTW, I'm just stating what the regulations are. By applying for and receiving an operating certificate or other certificate, you are agreeing to these conditions.
JamesNoBrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2017, 11:29 AM   #24  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirOverTheLog View Post
Are you a lawyer? I am NOT a lawyer. I won't be giving legal advice on an open public forum b/c i'm not a lawyer !!!
You should not be giving legal counsel at all, open form or otherwise.

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?
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 12:22 PM   #25  
Line Holder
 
AirOverTheLog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
Perhaps yoy will support your assertion that FAA employees have comitted a criminal act against you. You did say that, didnt you?
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
AirOverTheLog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 01:14 PM   #26  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirOverTheLog View Post
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
Oh. "Alternate facts," then. You're full of ****. And you lied. Your credibility is shot, and you're going on the ignore list.

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.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2017, 01:08 PM   #27  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 17
Default

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.
acecrackshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2017, 10:38 PM   #28  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acecrackshot View Post
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."
This has never been the case. The Administrator has never granted authority at the FSDO level to interpret the regulation. That has always been reserved for the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel and the Regional Counsel, speaking on behalf of the Administrator.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acecrackshot View Post
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."
There is no ambiguity regarding rest, and the Administrator has been consistent and clear.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acecrackshot View Post
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.
POI's are not paid "by the airplane."

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.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 05:40 AM   #29  
Line Holder
 
AirOverTheLog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 62
Default

Wrong Jonny Boy. It's all about the money $$$. Dollar bills yo!!! FAA = Money, NTSB = Safety
AirOverTheLog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 09:32 AM   #30  
Prime Minister
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 20,871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post

POI's are not paid "by the airplane."

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.
rickair7777 is online now   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Garbage station coming at LGA! Donkey Hangar Talk 1 03-29-2009 12:42 PM
FAA sets up high-level alerts for missed airline inspections CRJ1000 Major 1 04-19-2008 03:15 AM
Southwest Airlines Article from CNN UnlimitedAkro Major 60 03-11-2008 01:14 PM
New FAA Requirement: Reduce Safety (by John Carr, NATCA President) AUS_ATC Hangar Talk 0 03-08-2006 07:56 PM
NWA "replacement" maintenance falling behind? CRM1337 Major 1 10-02-2005 08:12 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:02 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1