FAA Pursuit of Dated Violations
 

Some fellow pilots and I were joking about idiotic misdeeds of yesteryear (as groups of layover guys sometimes will do) at a bar. Many of these types of stories could involve busting FARs, flying in a "reckless or careless manner", etc if they were indeed true to fact and not embellished or hyperbolized like most fishing [or flying] stories of days gone by.

Then the discussion turned to "what if some FAA guy is sitting here listening to us and somehow knew who we were?"

One of the guys said "well, the statute of limitations has surely run its course." At this point, another guy's face became somber and he mentioned that there is in fact no statute of limitations. A buddy of his received an LOI for something that had occurred YEARS prior!!
He said his buddy had ended up spending thousands to fight a certificate action for a misdeed at a former employer, with only vague material evidence--mostly hearsay. My BS meter would have been going crazy if my paranoia about the implications that has on a career hadn't done so first. Surely there must be some standard of corpus delicti or similar?

SOOO, esteemed APC people: what would it take for the FAA to investigate an event that happened years in the past? If an inspector had been a fly on the wall in our barroom confessional, would they have scope or authority? Say they see a picture or video or something?

I believe the statute of limitations is 5 years for FAA enforcement action.

About a THOUSAND more inspectors probably!

Seriously - they have enough CURRENT stuff on their plate to deal with, they don't need a 'Cold Case' unit. Plus - that would be very in tune with the new 'Compliance Philosophy' of the new AFS. That is my opinion in any case.

Years ago, an ASI told me it was typically six months, and this was derived from NTSB rulings on freshness of the offense. YMMV.

Generally yes, but there are a few exceptions. Google FAA Order 2150.3. Search for "time limit" within. Easy to find. If it is one of those exceptions, it's likely one of those "crime of the century" type deals, something that affected or had the potential to affect a lot of people with blatant reckless activity (not just breaking regs, but premeditated). They are rare. Civil penalties against companies are a bit different.

Can you say "stale complaint" rule?

Yes, the NTSB has held that the offender should be at least notified of an investigation within six months. Pilot Bill of Rights re-inforces the notification requirement.

But the obvious exemption to that would be that the six month stale complaint window probably doesn't start until AFTER the FAA becomes aware (or should have been aware) of the violation. They couldn't extend that to extreme lengths (ie deacades) but I would be careful bragging about fairly recent misdeeds on the internet.

I don't think there is a formal statute of limitations for FARs.

Thanks for the input guys. It would be horrible if an unnoticed, silly screw-up from younger years were to come back and haunt you for any reason.

The feds don't care. They are sucking on the government's teat!!!! If they smell blood they will go for it !!!!!

You highly inflated view of government employees' powers and desires. They are not ten-foot tall, all-knowing, all-seeing giants. Well, except for USMCFLYR.. They don't the time, motivation or incentive to open cold case flying violations.

GF

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wrong Jonny Boy. It's all about the money $$$. Dollar bills yo!!! FAA = Money, NTSB = Safety

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.

Sweet! Where can I get this money you seem to be all-knowing about?

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.

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.

[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.

[QUOTE=OnMissed;2379491]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).