Not sure what that means.

The Compliance Action is recorded in PTRS (Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem) which is an internal system to the FAA.

My bad. The movie was pre-millennial. 😜

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eUUzA56zG2U

I’m definitely not a millennial. ;)

Enforcement action is enforcement action. Violations on one's record are enough to cost a job interview, or an invite to a job interview...for a long time. Warning letters are enough. They can damage a career for years.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/comm...ilies/rofl.gifhttps://www.pilotsofamerica.com/comm...ilies/rofl.gifhttps://www.pilotsofamerica.com/comm...ilies/rofl.gif

I got it. Still a funny movie..!!!

Just my personal opinion, but I'm thinking the FAA will mostly be looking at the CFI in this situation. He was the more experienced pilot and he is supervising the flight while the student is learning the maneuvers. Also I am guessing that he was the agreed upon PIC as well, thus placing the responsibility more on him than the student who is focused on learning his flight maneuvers. I would advise the student to file the NASA report and to be humble and honest with the FAA. They might assign some remedial training depending on the circumstances, however they might just give you a talking to over the phone if you have the right attitude. Good luck with it and don't worry, this is far from a career killer.

One simple mistake will not lead to a violation or a Warning letter. It will be handled with Compliance Action if the airman is compliant. Which would equal no violation or warning letter.

Rose colored glasses work only so long.

Often it's experience that will teach you the truth.

So when you can't formulate a response you resort to cryptic messaging?

Confucius or fortune cookies..??

First time his hair has been on fire.

Multiple responses were already made. They do require a modicum of reading comprehension. That may have been your disconnect.

However, if it is an accident or a criminal act, the protections of the ASRS program do not apply, the report will be forwarded to the FAA and the information can be used.

It comes from the fact that the FAA has done that in the past, and when the pilot in question appealed his enforcement to the NTSB, the NTSB ruled that the information on the title strip is not protected under the ASRP program.

I can't lay my hands on the NTSB decision at the moment, but I'll see if I can did it up. As I recall it (it's been a while) the pilot has some sort of deviation. Let's say it was an altitude bust on an IFR flight plan. I don't know that's what it was, but lets say it was. So pilot files an NTSB report, and he puts something fairly specific in the title strip like "N456BK deviating from assigned altitude" This was back in the day of paper ASRP reports that you actually filled out with a pen folded up and mailed in. Back then, NASA would get the report, review it for intentional violations and criminal acts, and if none were involved, they would cut off the title strip, put a time and date stamp on it, and mail it back to you. So, the FAA sends the guy a letter of Investigation, and when responding to it, the pilot sends in the title strip with his other information. The FAA used the effective admission of guilt on the title strip in their finding of a violation against him. He appealed to the NTSB and they ruled that the strip was not protected under the ASRP program.

Two things to take away from this:

1) Be as vague and non-specific as you can in the title. Save the details, confessions, etc for the body of the ASRP report.

2) don't submit anything about an ASRP report in an investigation. It doesn't do anything for you in an investigation. It won't stop the investigation, and it won't prevent a finding of violation. All it will do is prevent any penalty assessed from taking effect. (certificate suspension, for example) If you are found to be in violation *then* bring out your ASRP receipt.


Again, I don't know that it actually was an altitude deviation in the cited case, that was just a "for example". I'll see if I can find the NTSB decision.

Well, as I said, at the FAA we don't have access to any NASA/ASRS files and would never know what an airmen uses for the title, they can name it anything they want.

That "technicality" you mentioned is unfortunate, that's the exact thing the compliance philosophy is trying to reverse, the adversarial standoff where in the absence of information the FAA fears the worst and the airman refuses to discuss. Hard to reverse decades of culture, but we are trying.

Well, in this case, the Airman sent the strip in to the FAA in response to the LOI, so they *did* have that part of it.

Unfortunately it will take years for pilots to forget and forgive, especially when the same safety inspectors are still around. I saw careers crushed over minor violations such as a right hand pattern at a non-towered airport. Ironically, these pilots probably would have been better off with DUI's as most major airlines ask about "DUI's within the past 5 years" but a violation is there forever. I know many airline pilots who refuse to teach as there is too much risk from a possible violation.

How did they even find out about a right hand pattern at a non-towered field?

One safety inspector liked to hang out at airports looking for them, other people would turn in the offending pilots to the FSDO... many ways.

The ASRS is protected within the body of the report, but not the title, which means that if the FAA learns of the violation based on the body of the report, the FAA may not take action. If the FAA learns of the violation from another source, which includes the title strip, the FAA may take action on that information.

A pilot who offers the strip when asked about an incident, or even in a matter peripheral to the incident, may incriminate himself and provide the legal impetus to investigate or to secure information to use against the pilot in the appeal process.

Whether you as an inspector routinely comb ASRS reports, or whether you have routine access to them, is irrelevant to the subject of what's protected and what's not.

Many people have the misconception that the FAA has access to ASRS reports or that they even care whether a report was filed, in that it would somehow change an investigation. This is in stark contrast to ASAP (and now Compliance Philosophy), which absolutely changes an FAA investigation.

If you hand over everything and the world, well that's up to you. If you know you are innocent and have information that would indicate this, the FAA wants to know about it, if you feel better doing it through a lawyer, all the more power to you. If you hide this information, you may be dragging yourself through a process that could have been stopped a long time ago.

Many of us have far, far too much experience with FAA abuse and too many years dealing with the FAA to buy into the bull**** of kinder and gentler compliance based philosophy. Anything you say can and absolutely will be used against you, and no, the FAA is NOT interested in your explanation of innocence unless it yields ammunition to use against you.

Don't call the tower. Don't respond to that letter of investigation, in the hopes the FAA will bless you through teary eyes and send you on your way. Call an attorney. You'll hear all day long that you don't need one. The person who tells you that does not have your best interests at heart. Know it. Embrace it.

The FAA is not your friend.

Don't call the tower. Don't respond to that letter of investigation, in the hopes the FAA will bless you through teary eyes and send you on your way. Call an attorney. You'll hear all day long that you don't need one. The person who tells you that does not have your best interests at heart. Know it. Embrace it.

The FAA is not your friend.[/QUOTE]..

..Unfortunately this kind of thinking has became the mentality in the US today..People trying to sneak away from their responsibilities, and hide behind the lawyers when they know they are wrong..

..What about accepting the mistake when it happens..??..Be a man..
..My experience with the FAA / ATC has been the exact opposite..I have made a few mistakes in the past..As a professional pilot I have accepted the responsibility, and shared my views with the FAA /ATC..Guess what..Not a single investigation / violation on my record so far, after 30 yrs of flying around the world..

..Here is my advise..Do as they say, be honest and accept your responsibilities..The best and easiest way to handle any situation, whether it happens in the skies or in everyday life..
..I have spoken..

Fly safe,
B757

..

..Unfortunately this kind of thinking has became the mentality in the US today..People trying to sneak away from their responsibilities, and hide behind the lawyers when they know they are wrong..

..What about accepting the mistake when it happens..??..Be a man..
..My experience with the FAA / ATC has been the exact opposite..I have made a few mistakes in the past..As a professional pilot I have accepted the responsibility, and shared my views with the FAA /ATC..Guess what..Not a single investigation / violation on my record so far, after 30 yrs of flying around the world..

..Here is my advise..Do as they say, be honest and accept your responsibilities..The best and easiest way to handle any situation, whether it happens in the skies or in everyday life..
..I have spoken..

Fly safe,
B757[/QUOTE]

It's advice, not advise.

Legal counsel has never been "be a man."

Yes, you have spoken, but badly. Foolishly, too, and clearly without foundation of understanding of experience.

Seeking legal counsel (this is a form on aviation law, a discussion of which is decidedly not "be a man," which has no bearing on a discussion of law, and is irrelevant) is not unmanly; it is the intelligent course of action when attending a legal matter.

If you have a medical issue, seek a doctor. If you seek to understand flight, seek a flight instructor. If you have a legal issue, see an attorney. This is not hiding behind an attorney. It's learning your rights and what to do and what not do to. Your counsel is the embracing of ignorance, which is neither prudent nor intelligent, and very, very bad advice (not advise) in all matters legal, and not.

..

..Unfortunately this kind of thinking has became the mentality in the US today..People trying to sneak away from their responsibilities, and hide behind the lawyers when they know they are wrong..

..What about accepting the mistake when it happens..??..Be a man..
..My experience with the FAA / ATC has been the exact opposite..I have made a few mistakes in the past..As a professional pilot I have accepted the responsibility, and shared my views with the FAA /ATC..Guess what..Not a single investigation / violation on my record so far, after 30 yrs of flying around the world..

..Here is my advise..Do as they say, be honest and accept your responsibilities..The best and easiest way to handle any situation, whether it happens in the skies or in everyday life..
..I have spoken..

Fly safe,
B757[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately not all FSDO's and not all Safety Inspectors are the same. There are some who view suspensions, even over minor issues, as a means of safety enhancement.
I saw one young CFI with your attitude go into a FSDO without legal representation and wind up with a 15 day suspension for a right hand pattern. Did not interfere with any other traffic, no safety issue. Heck, he did what most of us probably would have done. Someone else was already there in the wrong pattern as he came in off an instrument approach so he fell in behind him rather than cause an issue. Someone on the ground turned in him, but not the other airplane.
He was honest and "manned up" without legal representation and had his flying career killed before it even began.

This is probably some of the worst advice I've ever read on APC.