TommyDevito

And what are those "perks"?

pangolin

Pakistan. That’s why.

terks43

Thats easy, steady Taxpayer funded income with a pension for life and the security of knowing no matter how poorly a job you do as a regulator that nobody is ever going to replace you. (Last bit is in relation to the entire FAA and no just a single inspector) The FAA doesn’t have to preform well to justify its existence and further funding, it just merely has to exist to get that.

SonicFlyer

This is what happens when you government.

TommyDevito

I see. So an income that is less than what can be found in industry, and a pension that, again, will be usually less than found in industry (speaking of operations/airline) somehow offends you. Got it.

In every segment there are people that are poor performers. Even in your industry there are those that are subpar at best. Then, as in your industry, even in government there are those that strive to do the best job possible. And in government doing that job is often difficult considering the layers of bureaucracy, the whims of politicians and the pressure of industry.


Yea, right.

Of course you have absolutely no clue as to the inner workings of the agency, I understand that.

You aren't there when the budgets are submitted, or when congress mandates through law changes, but then refuses to fund the agency for those changes. Nor do you see the budget cuts that do take place.

Yea, I can see how you call those "perks"............

kevin18

What flavor is the FAA kool-aid?

Having spent 22 years in the government I have few good things to say about it. It’s damn near impossible to fire anyone. The waste is ridiculous, and the way to the top generally goes to the ones stabbing people in the back.

Budget cuts, yup FAA is the only one that has to deal with those. . .

rickair7777

Bottom line, if something happened involving one of these airmen and it came out that the FAA knew or suspected their certification was questionable, the lawyers would have a field day. And some politicians.

Also, I'll say this... it's sounds like this guy was Santa-for-Hire. I'd imagine at least of some of these cert holders may have known, or should have suspected, they were taking a shortcut.

Cyio

"If" the guy was a "Santa for hire" as you are saying, I am certain most knew about it. I mean hell, even today when people are going through recurrent everyone knows the examiners they want, the ones they dont want and certainly want to know about the new ones.

Sure, there could be some that didn't have a clue about the reputation of this guy, certainly all the instructors had to of known about him as well. I just cant see this being all ignorance on as everyones defense.

Bahamasflyer

Didnt you imply in post #72 that the government has sovereign immunity from being sued and that the FAA would have to allow the suit?

So which is it? It can’t be both.

rickair7777

Both.

The bureaucrats don't make the Sovereign Immunity call, that goes up the food chain I suspect to the Secretary level. The bureaucrats don't want to have go hat-in-hand and explain to the Secretary why they need SI in the first place. That would be a tough conversation... "you knew about this guy when?!?!"

Put themselves on the spot, or put a few airmen on the spot? I think you know the answer.

Also my previous post was in reference to applicants suing the FAA for making them take a 709... in that case, the FAA didn't (yet) know about the DPE's behavior therefore SI is reasonable... can't just let every ambulance chaser use the federal treasury as his personal piggy bank.

But in the event of an accident AFTER the FAA knew about this... that would be one of those times where they might actually waive SI and allow lawsuits to proceed.

Would have been nice if they had supervised this guy to prevent this from happening but honestly, if people were buying checkride outcomes they might actually suck as pilots, and innocent pax might die. So I'm Ok with evaluating their credentials.