And whoever said employers were saints; there should be a form for the applicant to hand them as well! Have you ever been arrested?Have you ever done anything illegal? Have you ever dispatched an aircraft or flight crew with known deficiencies? Have you ever encouraged or persuaded a flight crew to fly over gross or in unsuitable weather? Do you believe your training program is comprehensive and at least sufficient? Do you fudge duty times to permit or allow completion of a flight, Etc., Etc.

The prospective applicant new-hire isn't employing the operator. He isn't insuring the operator, either.

In an interview, one needs to be honest and forthright. One should also take the time and trouble to interview the employer. Ask the questions that need to be asked.

When it comes to violating regulations such as duty and rest times, that's not in the purview of the employer. That's all on the employee. If as a pilot you're exceeding rest intervals or cutting them short, it's your certificate on the line, and it's you that says no. As a fairly new FO I was in a foreign country when the dispatch called. The captain was told that our crew was to be given a reduced rest and turned around, and that the Director of Operations had provided a letter authorizing it. The captain simply handed the phone to me.

I'd like to see the letter, I said. Not the one from the DO making the authorization, but the one from the union, authorizing the DO to violate the contract, and another one from the Administrator authorizing the DO to violate the regulation. Fax that to me, will you. I'll be waiting. Better yet, send it to my phone. I'll stand by. What's that? You don't have it? Have the DO send it. He does have it, doesn't he?

Didn't think so. As steward, I'm sure I'd have seen something like that, so...what's that? You don't have such a letter, but you're saying that we can voluntarily cut our time short and plan on overextending our duty tomorrow? It's okay, you say, so long as we do it on our own volition? That's an interesting concept, but why would we do that? No, I think we'll take our rest. If you plan on interrupting it with one phone call, make it a good one.

I do a background check on the company; I show up for an interview having researched the firm. I know their history, I know their good and their bad. I know what they pay, what to expect. I know what they do in an interview, what they ask, and even the nature and format of the sim ride, if applicable. We all should; it's basic, and intrinsic to seeking and accepting an interview.

No surprise that after screening a resume and calling us in for a chat, the company wants to know more about us.

You equate a job interview with a criminal act? You just made the comparison. If you don't see a potential employer as a criminal entity and an interview as a crime, then perhaps you shouldn't make such a ridiculous comparison.

Where is this "rule" found that states that warning letters are "confidential?" You keep coming back to that. On what basis?

Of course not. One would have to be a complete fool to trust the Administration. Particularly those operating at the lower rungs who are often there because they were unable to make it on their own in private industry.

The real issue here is the distinct need for the subject described in the original post to seek qualified legal counsel.

And those that can't do - teach.
Another idiotic statement.

Meaning what, exactly. What is it that you're attempting to say (and more importantly, how does it apply here)?

JB, my mugger example was meant to show the merit of drawing limits to how honest you are in a not so complex situation. I did not mean aviation employers are all muggers. I think that pilot employers are some of the most invasive employers anywhere in terms of the amount of questions, tests, reports, histories, evals, checks and batteries they put their applicants through. It's something else, it really is. Many of them go well beyond the necessary level of scrutiny in determining who is safe and legally employable for the low paying job they offer. They do this, because pilots allow them to do it. If pilots would not allow it pilot applications would look about like the job applications found everywhere else. A brief face to face meeting, the PRIA bit and an FAA background report, a basic DOT drug test, maybe a quick call to your last employer and that's about it. But they have a thousand applicants so why not sort them into piles and make them jump through hoops.

I was an once an engineer. A short face to face paid for by the firm, an optional factory tour, maybe a basic drug test and proof of college degree were typical. Most managers would quietly call on your previous boss to see what they say, but that was always off the record. That's it. No tests, invasive questioning, PRIA reports, FOI requests, NDR reports, psych evals, sim ride, panel interview, interview bill or whatever else aviation employers put pilots through these days.

I think it might be your continued implication that the rank and file at the FAA are there because they 'couldn't hack it' in the real world.

I just started a couple of months ago. I 'barely made it' through 30 years in the corporate biz jet market. One of the other new hires is there as a retired 777 captain, who had a medical issue. We're both there because we actually want to (and can afford to) give something back, maybe actually increasing safety.

I certainly have no axe to grind, I won't be looking to end someone airline guy's career.

You didn't mean it, but that's the parallel you drew. Entirely non-sequitur. Of course one withholds from a criminal during a crime, if one can help it.

That has NO bearing and NO similarity and NO relationship to a job interview. When you go to the interview that you requested with the company to whom you chose to apply, in an attempt to secure the job you want, it has no bearing, no similarity, and no relationship in any way, shape or form to being the victim of a crime in which the criminal is violating the law, has chosen you to victimize, and is threatening your safety, security, and possibly your life. It's an utterly ridiculous comparison.

Honesty is expected in an employee. A crime victim is not an employee of the crime, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Such a simple solution: don't work for them.

Problem solved.

Allow it? Who employs whom? As a pilot applicant, you are the beggar, not the chooser. The employer chooses whom it will hire, and the employer chooses the experience, background, qualifications, minimums, aptitude, fitness, and any other aspect targeted for that specific assignment. The employer is the chooser. When you apply for a job, you are asking to be chosen. You do not have a right to the job when you show up, hat in hand, hoping to fly that type of equipment for that employer at that wage with those benefits.

If the employer requires a type rating, then you show up with the type rating. If the employer requires that you show up in a suit, you show up in a suit. If the employer requires a first class medical, you hold it or you go home. Very simple. You don't set the terms. The employer does.

If you find it to be a low paying job and too much hassle, then don't apply. Again, problem solved.

Then seek a job as an engineer. Nobody forces you to be a pilot.

The employer doesn't choose to follow the PRIA program; this is a requirement from the FAA, and prior to that, a mandate from Congress. When the employer elects to see if they want you representing them in their hundred million dollar aircraft with two hundred paying passengers (all of whose estates shall be well represented if you screw up) and risks the future of their company on you, they take such steps as they deem necessary; you can either apply for the job knowing whats involved, or go get that engineering job back. Not really rocket science, and it's known up front.

Which has what, exactly, to do with teaching?

How does one spot an inspector across the ramp? Socks don't match.

A lot of inspectors in the field in maintenance and operations are not there on the heels of a long and fruitful career, but rather from some low or relatively mid level position. They not made the transition to inspector because it was the next logical step in their climb up the career ladder, affording greater pay and opportunity.

I had an opportunity to spend a little time with an inspector this summer. I was surprised to see him as afar afield as he was, especially where he was, but so be it. We chatted for a time, and it turned out we knew some of the same places and the same people going some time back. Small world. He incorrectly identified some regulation in the discussion, and had a misunderstanding of what he identified. I didn't seek to correct him; I'm not his employer. I happened to know another inspector in his office. Great guy, I was assured. We think very highly of him.

I happened to know the other inspector who was spoken of in such glowing terms because we fired him. He was a **** poor pilot, showed terrible judgement, and was fired from the next company where he went (I called them). He nearly killed several people, performed maintenance that should have been criminal, misrepresented himself and his qualifications, put unairworthy aircraft in service that he personally fronted and brokered, and in our case, was fired after two major safety violations on the same day (one involving an excursion off the taxiway with passengers, and the other involving an approach at night with the alerter set a thousand feet below field elevation...a non-pilot crewmember caught it and brought it to his attention...and the crew refused to fly with him once on the ground). The only word I could find to describe him, having dealt with him on several levels before he turned to the FAA, would be "incompetent." Never the less, he was a great guy and a valued co-worker, I was told.

He's far from the only one.

We could sit here all day and point to one example after another, not that different save for the wrapper. I've certainly known some good individuals in the FAA, but you're quite right. I have a fairly low opinion of the rank and file inspector at large. I've known a few very good operations inspectors, and a few very good maintenance inspectors. But only a few. I've known a LOT more who aren't fit to fix a bicycle, or fly a kite, let alone enforce others in their zeal to make sure the rest of the free world does it right.

I do support the Administrator. I believe the regulations are crucial. I follow them. I believe they were "written in blood," and that includes PRIA; much of it doesn't get codified until a loss of life garners enough attention to make it so. They're important. I'm a long time mechanic and inspector; I take safety standards quite seriously, from the calibration of tools to updated publications, proper use of advisory circulars, recency of experience and proficiency, and operation of everything form a screwdriver to a 747. What I find difficult to take seriously is the plethora of inspectors who think they know far more than they do, and who are ready to enforce what they don't know, be it an operational standard, a regulation, or an oil seep.

I am grateful for enforcement which is properly done and which serves the individual and public interest; this is important to me whether I'm flying paying passengers, or I'm a paying passenger. These standards and this enforcement is entirely necessary, provided it is properly done. There are far too many yahoos who have hired into these positions, however, to approach with an air of trust and a willingness to simply go along. While the inspector kingdom highly values a "compliant attitude," such an attitude is best carried on the heels of the well informed pilot who has sought and obtained counsel prior to writing or speaking to the FAA.

^^^^^^^^
This!

MXL, I hope you continue to pass your professional ethics down to your protegees.

We need more professionals like you.

Yes, indeed.

No, I did not say employers are muggers, you got me wrong. I made an example using a mugger to show that when there is a valid reason, a higher priority than simple adherence to a common moray might apply. My using some example or other does not mean you can impute any meaning to it you like.

There is a valid point whether you like the street mugger example or not. I think it is a valid example more or less, because the employer is saying more or less that if you do not give us this information we want illegally, then no job for you. That's fine for most things they might want to know as long as they are legal questions, but not when they are asking illegal things they have no right to know. They don't get to know who I had sex with last night for example so I can have that job, what political (or sex) position I prefer, where my mind drifts occasionally in my spare moments, what I think of the leader of China, or any of a thousand other things either. It's none of their business. Same with my confidential dealings with the FAA- it's none of their doggone business. Why is this so hard for you to grab? Just because they offer a job I want does not entitle them to ask me whatever they want. We have laws about that and it lives under the broader heading of Labor Law.

We're not discussing street crime, we are discussing individual rights, labor and FAA laws, and what's appropriate to ask at a person at a job interview.

No, that's not the solution, the solution is they ask appropriate, legal questions on/at a job application/interview and you supply the appropriate, honest, legal answer in order to get the job.

No, it's a matter of law. If a company attempts to undermine or avoid the law they are wrong for doing so. Pilots should avoid such companies the way they would avoid any less than unethical entity or behavior. When that happens in large numbers, just see how the equation changes towards worker rights. That's a two way street you have there, the other way being workers voting with their feet to drive such abusive firms out of business.

I am convinced you are on the side of industry in some fundamental way, and at the same time anti-FAA in your basic outlook. You argue here for more freedom for industry to ask whatever they want, while at the same time you bash the FAA. In the end its a balance between these things that is needed. Too much of either thing creates a problem that needs to be addressed. I can let it go at that, but we'll have to agree to disagree on where the balance lies for now.