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 03-16-2017, 01:59 PM   #31
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirOverTheLog View Post
Wrong Jonny Boy. It's all about the money $$$. Dollar bills yo!!! FAA = Money, NTSB = Safety
Sweet! Where can I get this money you seem to be all-knowing about?
JamesNoBrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 02:15 PM   #32
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
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.
If that ever seems like the case, it should be worked at a high level, by your congress representative, by contacting the FAA managers, and so on. These people have telephones and they are not secret. They are also bound to investigate complaints from the public. You can hold them accountable for this, it's just that many times people are "scared" to talk to them, thinking that there's some sort of magical power they have to somehow harass or affect them. Those of us that are trying to uphold the faith of the American people do not need any "bad seeds" trying to undermine it, ultimately it just makes our job harder in the end to let those kind of attitudes persist or exist.

That said, staffing positions are determined by the size and complexity of the airline. More complex airline=more people and to some extent, higher pay for the more complex position, but there's no direct relationship as claimed before, it doesn't work like that. You might get authorized to hire more people if an airline gains airplanes and becomes bigger (but not always!), but there are only about 3 pay-grades that active inspectors exist at, and only two where they have oversight (assigned airlines and certificates), so it's generally not a wide range of pay. The only way to get an increase in pay is to get a step-increase (longevity that increases the first few years and then every few years after that, gradually tapering off) or get a promotion to the next grade, which takes applying and getting selected for a job. You can sometimes get a pay increase by a grade by taking a temporary detail, but that's usually a double-edged sword, may turn into permanent, may put you right back where you started. Most inspectors are either topped out in grade or one grade away from topping out though, because the 2-grade span I mentioned above is where you have the ability to have oversight, which makes you "useful" as an inspector. Point I'm getting to is that there isn't much range in grade and pay.
JamesNoBrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 06:42 AM   #33
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
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.
Sounds very much like a child saying "give me what I want or I'll hurt myself."

Still not paying off the FAA. In fact, insofar as the ridiculous assertion that the airline or airman is paying the FAA, it's irrelevant.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 01:59 PM   #34
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1
Default

[QUOTE=JohnBurke;2308920]
The Miranda warning applies to police, in criminal cases, but not to inspectors in administrative cases. /QUOTE]

NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT

Statements gained in administrative cases, like tax, ATF Inspections and Immigration cases, can and will be used in a criminal proceeding.

There's a 1968 case that held that evidence(statements) gaining in administrative questioning can be used in a criminal proceeding, (see https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...91/1/case.html).

In most cases an FAR violation is handled administratively, BUT SOME FAR VIOLATIONS HAVE PARALLEL CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS.

Here's an example of evidence gain during an administrative action used in a subsequent criminal action.

The Threat of Parallel Investigations: When Civil Isn?t Civil

Always consult AOPA or your legal counsel before dealing with the FAA.
OnMissed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 07:35 PM   #35
Prime Minister
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: RJ
Posts: 17,967
Default

[QUOTE=OnMissed;2379491]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
The Miranda warning applies to police, in criminal cases, but not to inspectors in administrative cases. /QUOTE]

NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT

Statements gained in administrative cases, like tax, ATF Inspections and Immigration cases, can and will be used in a criminal proceeding.

There's a 1968 case that held that evidence(statements) gaining in administrative questioning can be used in a criminal proceeding, (see https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...91/1/case.html).

In most cases an FAR violation is handled administratively, BUT SOME FAR VIOLATIONS HAVE PARALLEL CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS.

Here's an example of evidence gain during an administrative action used in a subsequent criminal action.

The Threat of Parallel Investigations: When Civil Isn?t Civil

Always consult AOPA or your legal counsel before dealing with the FAA.
Valid point, but I would argue that ANY tax matter has criminal potential. Even if you didn't MEAN to screw up your taxes, it could still be a crime.

But in aviation if you say missed a crossing restriction, the potential for a criminal investigation is pretty much zero (in the US). So it might work out for you to come clean and rely on the new enforcement philosophy.

But if there's any complications like alcohol, lying to the FAA or any other fed, or any sort of ancillary criminal activity you'd better keep your trap shut and get a lawyer. Same for any sort of intentional FAR violations, or bent metal (in the later case, to protect you from civil lawsuits from other parties, not the FAA).
rickair7777 is offline   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 08:29 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.3, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2017 Internet Brands, Inc.