Not true at all. It's sent to serve as notification of investigation, nothing more, nothing less. The inspector investigating isn't trying to "win" anything, they are trying to determine if there's a violation. It's very rare for an inspector to witness any kind of violation, it's almost always witnessed or captured some other way, then it goes to the inspector to determine if it really was a violation and if there were any mitigating or aggravating factors. I can assure you that these investigations can take sudden and opposite turns, which is why investigation happens in the first place. That's why I started out with the "if you know you did nothing wrong and that information hasn't gotten out/been brought up" then maybe you do need a lawyer. I'd rather that information be brought up as early as possible so the investigation can be closed, saving everyone money and time, but that's completely up to the individual, and if they feel they aren't being heard, it's their option to get an attorney. Maybe with John Burke's example, military people are just bad, I don't know, but he's painting with a rather broad brush. Those stereotypes are hard to get rid of, even with a good deal of time.

If you say so.

I certainly didn't.

If that's your opinion, then say as much, as I did not. Moreover, it's you that's painting with a broad brush. We could expand into more detail involving a number of other FAA inspectors, if you like; I used one inspector as an example. I've got a lot more.

If an inspector attempts enforcement action which goes nowhere, or brings it and it isn't reversed on appeal, no big deal for him or her. It can crush someone else's career, which is why that someone else is well advised to see legal counsel.

We could talk about the FSDO manager who called me in, shut the door, and told me to buy his secretary a dozen red roses or he'd find a means of going after my certificates. We could talk about the maintenance inspector who was transferred twice after individuals physically punched him to the ramp (he was that offensive), and who was transferred again after my encounter. I didn't hit him, or threaten him, but he called me in the night and threatened me...because I quoted him in the subsequent acts. I won my case, incidentally. We could go on and on, both with those matters with which I have personal involvement, and a host of others with which I have personal knowledge. Broad brush? How much is someone willing to risk their certificate on the basis of an inspector's temper, bias, judgement, or simply lack of knowledge?

I don't hate the FAA. I've been an aviation safety counselor, and I am in general an ardent supporter of the Administration and the regulation. That does not mean, however, that one should approach an inspector and enforcement action naively or blindly, as the repercussions for the pilot victim can last a lifetime.

All I was saying is the puppy dog approach to borrow Richie Lengel's phrase, is probably the best way to handle any inspector making a routine inquiry on light matters. That's common sense. If an inspector is a prick then what can one do about it in such cases, and they do exist hopefully in small numbers.

I actually witnessed a POI at a new hire airline class who qualified squarely as the most arrogant prick I ever saw. He went in front of the new hires, announced he had just seriously violated a captain for what sounded like minor paperwork discrepancies involving MEL notations, passed his badge around the room and then said welcome to my airline, I am out to get you all- are there any questions? He then turned and left. All were stunned, including the class instructor. I have never seen anybody as arrogant before or since. I hope/believe he was an exceptional fellow.

Where did I or anyone say this?

Commuter airlines or LCC's will generally throw their young to the wolves.

A fledgling pilot with a fresh PPL should not have his entire career jeopardized because of a simple mistake that didn't even result in a loss of separation or an emergency. End of story. If it's his first offense, then no harm, no foul, let him off with a slap on the wrist. But a violation that will stay with him to the grave is a little bit excessive (yeah ok, cleared after 2 years, but you still have to check "yes")

Suppose you're a 22-year-old college graduate who got caught shoplifting when you were 14, but graduated with honors and have an otherwise clean record (actual example). Should you still have that infraction held against you during a job search? Of course not. We all make mistakes when we are young and inexperienced, but it doesn't haunt us our entire lives. An FAA violation has the potential to do that, and to hold a 200 hour pilot to the same standards as a 20,000 hour pilot is insane. Pilots are people, people make mistakes, and people with less experience make even more mistakes. Experience makes a difference.

Nobody is arguing against taking responsibility for one's actions. Instead, maybe what should become more "popular" is the application of common sense when it comes to enforcing the law. There are inmates in California prisons serving life sentences for minor misdemeanors. Where is the common sense? There are pilots whose careers have ended over an inconsequential altitude bust. I ask, again, where is the common sense? Why throw the entire book at a pilot when a simple slap on the wrist will do?

I have a better solution. You asked about a cop giving a ticket. When you get a speeding ticket, you can get it removed from your record by taking defensive driver training. This is a fantastic system. Instead of just punishing the driver, they get the opportunity to show they have learned their lesson and *earn* a clean record through re-education. Why not have the same thing for pilots? If you bust a restricted area, mandate retraining with a CFI, get rechecked with an examiner, and have the violation expunged from the record. This should be an option for all cases like this airspace bust. It could be an add-on to the WINGS program.

USMCFLYR, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You are an FAA employee; I am an airline pilot. Although we work together as much as possible, at the end of the day our relationship is one of cop-citizen. And when we are suspected of breaking a FAR, it becomes the relationship of cop-criminal, and we sit at opposite ends of the table. Whenever an FAA examiner sits in the jump seat, I can't wait for the flight to be over. I am a competent pilot, but when the examiner has the power to end your career over any mistake they deem significant (very subjective), it makes for a very tense environment.

DISCLAIMER: This entire post has been prepared by Yazzoo's attorney. Any and all statements may not be attributed to Yazzoo himself, and no part of this post may be considered an admission of guilt ;)

There is plenty of stuff in aviation that is not right, and some sucks big time; for instance, due to PRIA, having to list a crappy former employer that will bad mouth you. This is true for Pilots and A&P's. Run into a couple of those early in the game, it can sink a career as well.

The FAA is the ruling party in this business, and I would argue it is a good thing on the whole. The aviation regulatory structure is tilted towards the regulator, but domestic aviation is a safety critical form of transportation unlike the rest. Should the FAA therefore enjoy a license to be unjust with any worker it wants? No, but we cannot have dangerous people flying airplanes because they have the money to tie up courts with lawyers. We know for sure that where there is money there is legal power, and safety should not be held ransom to a pilot with a great lawyer. When the FAA truly gets out of line which they do sometimes, Congress gets in the loop and things are fixed. We have seen numerous examples of the latter such as the Colgan 3407 legislation. On the other hand I have no doubt some pilots have been treated very poorly by the FAA, and I see it as the price of a system that has the highest safety record of any form of transportation.

Personally, I have never had a serious issue with the FAA, other than the fact that they do not have enough inspectors, and do not typically inspect in a manner that would yield much better results. I do have an issue with the PRIA system. I am also fine with the FAA knowing who I worked for, though not all employers knowing where I have been or where I'm going, in some instances. The PRIA should have been set up with a third party system or such, This would also yield better results as to it's intended purpose.

Absolutely! You often hear of the horror stories from dealing with the FSDOs but not the *success* stories (if you were to look at them in such a light). I currently sit across from two former GA ASIs who are new hires (so fresh out of the FSDOs) and neither of them would be *gunning* for this person's ticket - - and neither of them are asking for anyone to buy the secretaries flowers either!
Agreed again. I'd probably be a fair Santa if I were an ASI. I just sat through the 'How to give a checkride' class for the new ASIs two weeks ago. The entire gist of the class was that they WANTED the applicants to pass and that you should work very hard to make that possible. I certainly didn't hear the FAIL THEM ALL mentality - at least coming from the Academy instructor. Now there was one guy in class that I could see taking all of the instruction in and then turning into a terror when he hits the street - but then again - I've already mentioned that 10% bad apples in every organziation.

You'll need to take your beef up with the hiring boards on this issue. It is them asking for a 20 year military retiree who has flown heavy jets around the world successfully for his high school transcript and then doesn't get the job because of was more interested in chasing girls than his high school chemistry class which he got a 'D' out of and therefore doesn't have such a high GPA. yes - a violation from the FAA hurts your hiring chances. A speeding ticket can hurt your hiring chances. And a low GPA can hurt your hiring chances. Don't you wish that those young starry-eyed kids who all dream of being airline pilots would apply some of that common sense and logic to the requirements of the career?

Well....I don't know about CA - I wouldn't put anything past them - but here in conservative OK - - there is no one with misdeamnors serving a life sentence due to that particular crime. Are you possibly referring to the '3-strikes and your out' sentencing clause? Well...career criminals reap what they sow I guess.

They do have such training Yazzoo. Our own infamous Senator inhofe who nearly landed on a closed runway in TX and then publicly stated that he didn't have time to check those pesky NOTAMs got some of that remedial training - though I believe that he should have had a much harsher punishment for his transgression.
Did Sen. Inhofe Get Off Easy? Chapter and Verse (Updated) - The Atlantic

In the end - this will end up as a negoitation between the inspector, their manager, and probably an attorney. A warning letter that goes away in two years is a possibility, maybe with some remedial training, maybe not depending on the circumstances of the infraction.

You must not be familiar with the Flight Inspection Operations Group (commonly known as 'Flight Check') Yazzoo.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flig...ghtinspection/

Check out this clip even for a better understanding of my job:
FAA updating flight inspection fleet for a NextGen world - AOPA

I'm NOT an ASI and I don't work in the FSDO. I get ramp checked by the same people that you do and I have those ride alongs same as you. We actually work incredibly close with each other - me as an FAA employee and you as an airline pilot. You like that nice safe ILS you fly on every trip? Thank the guy on the ground maintaining it and the guys in the air who checks to make sure it works properly. You like those RNAV approaches? Thank the procedure specialist who developed it and the guy who flew it to make sure that it was safe. There is no cop-criminal relationship that I am aware of between you and I.