Notice from the FAA
06-02-2014 | 08:42 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Airbus FO / C-17 AC
Long story, so I'll try to get right to the point...
Flew in right seat of jet. Jet had hot start resulting in substantial damage. The pilot (operator) in the left seat put me on his FORM 6120 in the list with the other passengers however, next to my name he checked the box "crew" and also checked the box "non-revenue".
I got a call from that pilot who said the NTSB wants me to fill out page 8 of the 6120 Form which is for Crew Members. I told him I'd rather keep my pilot information confidential since it wasn't relevant.
I get an e-mail from the NTSB stating that they "Request" that I fill out page 8 of form 6120 "in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. Part 830.5 and 830.15" and provide an explanation of what happened. I replied that those requirements were for crewmembers and operators of which I am neither.
I then get a certified mail letter requesting that I present to the FSDO my medical, my commercial certificate and my logbook for inspection according to 14 CFR 61.3(L) & 61.51(a) within 5 days.
Question:
Do they have authority under 61.3(L) & 61.51(a) to demand this inspection given that I am a passenger on a plane who just happens to have a certificate?
If you have any thoughts, please don't hesitate to post them. All input is welcomed.
thnx in advance.
Flew in right seat of jet. Jet had hot start resulting in substantial damage. The pilot (operator) in the left seat put me on his FORM 6120 in the list with the other passengers however, next to my name he checked the box "crew" and also checked the box "non-revenue".
I got a call from that pilot who said the NTSB wants me to fill out page 8 of the 6120 Form which is for Crew Members. I told him I'd rather keep my pilot information confidential since it wasn't relevant.
I get an e-mail from the NTSB stating that they "Request" that I fill out page 8 of form 6120 "in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. Part 830.5 and 830.15" and provide an explanation of what happened. I replied that those requirements were for crewmembers and operators of which I am neither.
I then get a certified mail letter requesting that I present to the FSDO my medical, my commercial certificate and my logbook for inspection according to 14 CFR 61.3(L) & 61.51(a) within 5 days.
Question:
Do they have authority under 61.3(L) & 61.51(a) to demand this inspection given that I am a passenger on a plane who just happens to have a certificate?
If you have any thoughts, please don't hesitate to post them. All input is welcomed.
thnx in advance.
Man, stop asking dudes on a web forum and start talking to an aviation attorney. I know from personal experience that this guy is legit: http://brucelawfirmllc.com It won't cost you much and may save you a lot of heartburn down the road. The FAA doesn't come to play without lawyers. Neither should you.
06-03-2014 | 05:19 AM
#22
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
......but remember, the FAA has the authority to fine you up to $50,000 for violating stuff (maximum "civil" penalty that can be levied by an executive agency) so if you don't have a license to take suspend/revoke....they could fine you as a means of enforcing a punishment for not submitting to something you are required to submit to. You might include THAT as a "matter" to be interested in.
61.3(l) says you have to submit your certs to the FAA / NTSB if they request. They have requested, you must do it or risk violation. If they violate you, the could go after you for a fine.
They DO have the authority to force you to show them your pilot certificate, medical, and logbook (Side note: you are only required to keep track of times used to prove currency and anything used towards getting a license so.....only show them those times. Write em on a napkin if you want).
Since if you don't, it will be a clear violation of 61.3(l), and unless you want to fight the FAA in front of an NTSB Adimistrative Law Judge (Enforcement action appeal process), I'd present them and not jerk them around. I am not a lawyer or an FAA person, but I'd say the NTSB ALJ is going to uphold the FAA's actions because it is pretty clear.
With all that said, they do NOT have the authority to make you SAY or ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHAT-SO-EVER!!!!! Walk into the FSDO, say "As per 61.3(l), I am presenting my pilot certificate, medical, and logbook." If they then ask you any questions, you simply say "I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present."
61.3(l) says you have to submit your certs to the FAA / NTSB if they request. They have requested, you must do it or risk violation. If they violate you, the could go after you for a fine.
They DO have the authority to force you to show them your pilot certificate, medical, and logbook (Side note: you are only required to keep track of times used to prove currency and anything used towards getting a license so.....only show them those times. Write em on a napkin if you want).
Since if you don't, it will be a clear violation of 61.3(l), and unless you want to fight the FAA in front of an NTSB Adimistrative Law Judge (Enforcement action appeal process), I'd present them and not jerk them around. I am not a lawyer or an FAA person, but I'd say the NTSB ALJ is going to uphold the FAA's actions because it is pretty clear.
With all that said, they do NOT have the authority to make you SAY or ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHAT-SO-EVER!!!!! Walk into the FSDO, say "As per 61.3(l), I am presenting my pilot certificate, medical, and logbook." If they then ask you any questions, you simply say "I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present."
Last edited by Michael9000; 06-03-2014 at 06:00 AM.
06-03-2014 | 09:23 AM
#23
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,938
Likes: 703
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
(i) Presentation of required documents. (1) Persons must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate, logbook, or any other record required by this part for inspection upon a reasonable request by—
(i) The Administrator;
(ii) An authorized representative from the National Transportation Safety Board; or
(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
Did the law change?
I think I'll submit to producing my certificate, medical and logbook. There is nothing that I can imagine being used to my disadvantage. The logbook will demonstrate that I don't have a single hour logged in that aircraft and that will confirm my declaration.
If they push beyond that, I'll turn the dogs on them.
(i) The Administrator;
(ii) An authorized representative from the National Transportation Safety Board; or
(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
Did the law change?
I think I'll submit to producing my certificate, medical and logbook. There is nothing that I can imagine being used to my disadvantage. The logbook will demonstrate that I don't have a single hour logged in that aircraft and that will confirm my declaration.
If they push beyond that, I'll turn the dogs on them.
But the slippery slope here is that they're almost certainly going to ask about your status on the A/C...personally I wouldn't have that conversation without a lawyer involved. If you go in alone and just refuse to talk at all, they might take that as an indication of guilt and investigate further.
06-03-2014 | 10:41 AM
#24
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
I'm sure that's what they want to know...did you log it. If you didn't log it, weren't sitting in the seat of a required crewmember, and the other pilot isn't trying to blame or implicate you, then I can't see any conceivable way they can put you on the hook for this. Although the other guy didn't do you any favors by indicating you were "crew".
But the slippery slope here is that they're almost certainly going to ask about your status on the A/C...personally I wouldn't have that conversation without a lawyer involved. If you go in alone and just refuse to talk at all, they might take that as an indication of guilt and investigate further.
But the slippery slope here is that they're almost certainly going to ask about your status on the A/C...personally I wouldn't have that conversation without a lawyer involved. If you go in alone and just refuse to talk at all, they might take that as an indication of guilt and investigate further.
The FAA and NTSB are free to ask whatever they wish. It is not my obligation to answer. If they construe my silence as an indication of guilt, they can seek to discipline me for my silence (which is unlawful).
I think they have reached the boundary of their power in acquiring information from me. After reviewing my logbook and certificates, they will be back to asking me to voluntarily provide information which I would not do so knowing how fast they are to turn on an uncooperative individual.
Thanks for everyone's input. :)
06-03-2014 | 11:29 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Let us know what happens. This is interesting.
06-03-2014 | 12:40 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 997
Likes: 0
From: JAFO- First Observer
This is an interesting thread. The OP (who sure seems to be highly knowledgeable on legal matters) appears to be motivated to "Press-To-Test" all the authorities vested in a few government agencies.
It sure sounds like the OP does not need an attorney, cuz he probably already is one?
Please keep us posted on what happens next!
Popcorn and remote in hand...
It sure sounds like the OP does not need an attorney, cuz he probably already is one?
Please keep us posted on what happens next!
Popcorn and remote in hand...
06-03-2014 | 01:10 PM
#27
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Absolutely.
Spoke with an aviation attorney who endorsed my decision not to fill out any forms that would misrepresent my presence on board.
Called the FSDO and made an appointment for half a hour to allow them an inspection of my docs. The attorney agreed that this presents no risk since I'm not claiming to have something that I don't, such as: an endorsement or logged flight time concerning that aircraft or company.
I'm starting to question whether the flight was being conducted under part 91 or 135. If part 91, why would the PIC/Operator suggest that I was a crewmember? If part 135, he would clearly be in trouble for having a passenger in the front seat and thus be motivated to try to pass me off as a crewmember.
This may be where the plot thickens.
Could I be held accountable for being in a required crewmember's seat if there is no way for me to determine that it is indeed a required crewmember seat? The plane doesn't require two pilots however, his op specs might. Moreover, regardless of his op specs, he wouldn't be allowed to have a passenger in the front seat on a 135 (passenger) flight. Since it would be impossible for me to know that the passengers on board were or were not the owners, I don't think it could be concluded that I should have made an assumption that they were not the owners.
I don't think it is stated anywhere that a PILOT is forbidden to occupy a front seat that requires a crewmember. Clearly the operator would be in violation, but I don't see how a Pilot might be considered responsible as it would be impossible for that pilot to determine that the people on board are truely the owners of the aircraft and, without having access to the operators op-specs, there is no way for that pilot to know if the operator is in compliance with any crewmember requirement stated in his op-specs.
Spoke with an aviation attorney who endorsed my decision not to fill out any forms that would misrepresent my presence on board.
Called the FSDO and made an appointment for half a hour to allow them an inspection of my docs. The attorney agreed that this presents no risk since I'm not claiming to have something that I don't, such as: an endorsement or logged flight time concerning that aircraft or company.
I'm starting to question whether the flight was being conducted under part 91 or 135. If part 91, why would the PIC/Operator suggest that I was a crewmember? If part 135, he would clearly be in trouble for having a passenger in the front seat and thus be motivated to try to pass me off as a crewmember.
This may be where the plot thickens.
Could I be held accountable for being in a required crewmember's seat if there is no way for me to determine that it is indeed a required crewmember seat? The plane doesn't require two pilots however, his op specs might. Moreover, regardless of his op specs, he wouldn't be allowed to have a passenger in the front seat on a 135 (passenger) flight. Since it would be impossible for me to know that the passengers on board were or were not the owners, I don't think it could be concluded that I should have made an assumption that they were not the owners.
I don't think it is stated anywhere that a PILOT is forbidden to occupy a front seat that requires a crewmember. Clearly the operator would be in violation, but I don't see how a Pilot might be considered responsible as it would be impossible for that pilot to determine that the people on board are truely the owners of the aircraft and, without having access to the operators op-specs, there is no way for that pilot to know if the operator is in compliance with any crewmember requirement stated in his op-specs.
06-03-2014 | 02:19 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
. So I plan to grant them an inspection of my certificate, medical and logbook. As I said before, I can't imagine anything negative coming from disclosure. I think that they hurt themselves by going this route. If they had asked me for an explanation of what happened, they would have received it, now they're left to piece it together.
1st bolded statement.
You will GRANT them? Uh....as has already been explained multiethnic times, they have the legal right; unless you are the type that also ALLOWS the policeman to write you a speeding ticket.
2d bolded statement.
You must not have much experience will the legal system or the government. That IS them asking nicely. They don't send a personal note asking please. They use references.
06-03-2014 | 02:28 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Good luck with standing your ground and not answering questions!
It seems that you might be quite the talker and have something to say.
I am curious to know why you think a passenger can't sit in the front right seat of an airplane operating under P135. Can you provide a reference for that?
It seems that you might be quite the talker and have something to say.
I am curious to know why you think a passenger can't sit in the front right seat of an airplane operating under P135. Can you provide a reference for that?
06-03-2014 | 02:36 PM
#30
Banned
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Good luck with standing your ground and not answering questions!
It seems that you might be quite the talker and have something to say.
I am curious to know why you think a passenger can't sit in the front right seat of an airplane operating under P135. Can you provide a reference for that?
It seems that you might be quite the talker and have something to say.
I am curious to know why you think a passenger can't sit in the front right seat of an airplane operating under P135. Can you provide a reference for that?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
