Well it sounds like he screwed himself...he should have kept his mouth shut, lawyered up and filled out a NASA report. But we can't put that sh** back in the horse now can we...

Sounds like his best bet is to explain the violation with a positive and educational outlook when he is inevitably asked about it during his interviews at the airlines. And keep a squeaky clean record from this point on.

EDIT: Why did the chief flight instructor want him to spill all the details?? What happened to taking the pilot's side against the feds?

 

Maybe it is that taking responsibility for your actions thing that is so unpopular in today's society.

 

An ASRS report will protect him, if his actions weren't intentional and weren't criminal in nature (not enough information provided yet), and he hasn't attempted to use one for protection in recent times. It will not protect him from a violation, however; it only protects him from the penalty thereof. If he is issued a violation for unauthorized entry into restricted airspace and given a suspension of his pilot certificate, the timely filing of the ASRS report will protect him from having his certificate taken. His record will still show a suspension, however, and a violation for the airspace entry.

One should be careful in completing the ASRS report, however, as the FAA cannot use what's contained in the body of the report, but may use anything else associated with the report. The title strip, which is returned to the applicant, for example. If the applicant makes a confession in the title line of the strip ("Restricted Airspace Violation 10/15/14" for example), the title may be used against the pilot. Most who submit these forms are not aware that material outside the body of the report may be used against them, and may place themselves in jeopardy.

Again, consult with an attorney. It bears repeating.

Consult with an attorney.

 

Sometimes you are better off cooperating, sometimes not. Many times, with small stuff, it goes like this... The FSDO becomes aware of something and needs to check it out. This gets assigned to an inspector. Inspector is furnished with some type of lead or has word that you did it, or were somehow involved. You explain to inspector. Inspector is satisfied it was a minor or isolated incident. Inspector tells their boss and end of story. Big trouble sometimes comes when it really is a minor issue, though the Feds aren't sure at this point and really want to know what happened, and you don't cooperate. This forces them to launch an official investigation. This is when things usually get worser... as you have forced their hand. In any case I might recommend a qualified attorney; though to lawyer up and such might be a bit premature.

 

More like the whole "applying common sense when enforcing the law thing" that is so unpopular.

 

If you are implying the FAA does not apply common sense, what do you mean by that? They get a red flag from ATC about something a pilot probably did and they follow up on it, that's about it. That's what they are supposed to do. Penalties may get stiffer with non-cooperation by the pilot during the follow-up process and an uncooperative pilot greatly complicates a followup. The rule of thumb is, if it's an inadvertent infraction and something pretty common, then fess up and take your lumps. If it was a serious gaff and negligence was clearly a big part of it or there was injury or damage, then a lawyer is needed because it is assumed the FAA is after your tickets and they are not held to high levels of fairness as administrators. In that case there needs to be someone on your side to push back for fairness and clarity. I do not think USMC was implying that a lawyer is never required because when you really screw up there is a chance of losing everything and you need the FAA to carefully consider your penalty.

 

Do you apply the same criteria to a cop giving a speeding ticket too?

 

I was in a FSDO some years ago, on business. I happened to overhear a conversation by an inspector, whom I knew, who was seated in a nearby cubicle. The inspector was on the phone, discussing a matter that came across his desk, involving a private pilot who flew a friend to another location. The private pilot had apparently accepted slightly more than the pro rata share of the expenses (friend paid for all the fuel).

"I don't just want to make an example of this guy. I want to rip his beating heart out of his chest and hold it up, dripping, for all the world to see. I want to make an example of this guy. By the time I get done with him, I want him to wish he was never born."

Some have told me that I should have recorded those comments. Perhaps. A matter of public record or not, that was a civil servant far overreaching his mandate, with far too much vitriol. I knew of another case where the same inspector (a former instructor pilot at a local Guard aviation unit) had caused a private pilot friend of mine to cry, over a similar issue. The friend had been asked to speak in his church, and the inspector happened to be visiting that church that day. The young man used his private flying in his talk, and mentioned taking a friend flying.

The inspector met him in the foyer on the way out of the church, and said "I heard what you said in there, and I'm going to get you. I'm going to take away your pilot certificate, and by the time I'm done with you, I will have ruined your life." The kid was in tears when he recounted the experience.

I had a similar experience with the same inspector a few years later on a different issue, and on parting, the inspector said "You're technically right, and on appeal, you'll get your pilot certificate back. You'll win, but in the meantime, I'll make your life a living hell, and I may just do it for spite."

Is there a reason to be careful what's said to the inspector at the FSDO level? I appreciate the naive notion that the guilty need not fear, but that is decidedly NOT the case with the FAA. You NEED to know that under administrative law in dealing with FAA regulation, you are GUILTY until proven innocent, not the other way around. You are issued the violation, and later you get to appeal the matter at your expense, to try to prove your innocence.

Work the matter through an attorney. Far better not to violate the regulation in the first place, but even an administrative action such as a warning letter can affect you for a LONG time in your career, especially if your goal involves the airlines. At a minimum it stays in the record for two years, but employers far down the line will ask if you've ever been investigated for a violation, or received a warning.

When the FAA asks for your side of the story, the FAA can and will use anything you say against you; it's not necessary to issue the violation, but it will be used against you when you appeal. When the FAA inspector smiles and says "we just want to hear side of things," you need to know that what's really being said is "we are providing you with an opportunity to provide evidence to be used against you." To think otherwise is to think quite naively. Don't make that mistake.

 

Wow, military guys are horrible.

 

A certified letter is not sent "unless" they already believe they have enough evidence to win.