If you are correct, that is his issue. Let him be. If you are correct, he will be found, if you are wrong you are casting shadows on an innocent person.

 

First of all, it is not a "plan." It is simply a response to a question that I feel is unnecessary. You say you don't think the government is out to get you, but in the same sentence, you want to pay the government $money$ to make sure they aren't making mistakes. I guess what I am trying to say is don't be so paranoid! If they are to blame, they would pay dearly for their "inaccuracies." I would almost be willing to bet that one would get a higher paid "out of court settlement" than the job is worth!

 

Well, I would rather pay a few bucks to insure I am protected. If you would rather roll the dice, be my guest. I have paid 20 years of auto insurance to insure I was protected even though I haven't caused a crash in the same period. Maybe you think that is foolish as well.

By the way, have you looked into how hard it is sue the federal government? How big is your war chest?

 

Your comparison of auto insurance is waaaaaaaay out of whack! Driving is obviously a calculated risk. All insurance companies use the stat of 30% of all drivers will be involved in a serious accident in their lifetime! Secondly, suing a federal body for providing false information is SUPER easy. In fact, there is about a 99% chance they would concede immediately if they knew they were at fault. In this conversation, I was just posing a simple question, but you seem to want to argue to the death. In this discussion, I promise I will win every time. My initial quote is iron clad!

 

Okay, good for you that you have such confidence in your counsel.

Actually, my comparison of auto insurance is spot on: humans make mistakes. I have no idea of what the error rate is for data entry folks, but I'm sure somewhere it exists. While those working in a room in OakCity won't kill anyone with their mistakes, it could prevent me from getting a job (or at least make me jump through hoops to get a lower seniority number).

Look, I'm not angry with your position. I simply prefer to be proactive rather than hoping litigation will prove my point.

Do what you want. I have given my argument supporting my opinion. There is no "correct" way. I always see an optometrist prior to my medical to insure my eyes are still 20/20 rather than showing up at my ME and having him tell me I need glasses.

For the record, I'm not paranoid. But I do remember playing "Telephone" in elementary school. The reality is that every time a human receives and passes on information, there is a degradation in accuracy.

To me, spending a few bucks (if I recall correctly, $3 plus five cents per page) is a whole lot better insurance for my next career step than hoping everything is correct, and suing if it isn't.

 

You have officially taken this to the next level. Which wasn't the intent. "Confidence in my counsel" sounds like a 3rd grader. Your comparison to auto is just as pathetic. The FAA says their input error is roughly 1 in 10,000. It sounds like OCD has set in for you. I guess you win. I'm done.

 

If, as you say, the error rate is 1 in 10,000, then consider this: according to APC there are 65000 pilots in the legacy and LCC category. That means 6 or 7 of them have bogus information in their file. Add to that the other 50,000 pilots flying cargo and regional. If what the FAA says is correct, there are around 12 pilots in those airlines who have erroneous information.

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind. But do you really want to be one of those who has an error?

IMHO, if I were submitting an application to a company, I would want to be sure. If you don't, then Do Not check your records. That is your call.

 

HEY! there is that litigious American culture
If it ERRONEOUS - maybe it is an ERROR.
Governmental defamation of character huh? Is that an actual legal ruling.
Are you sure defmation doesn't have some aspect of intent associated?
Like any data that any agency collects on an indivdual - it is good to make sure that t is correct.

 

[QUOTE=Beech90;1345324]My friend had a interview with RAH, and has two checkride failures, but he told me he told them he had none. Is there a way from them to find out?
His old logbook from his part 91 days was destroyed, so the checkrides are not in there.[/QUOTE)


Your friend just made a serious mistake. More than likely he will get a tap on the shoulder at some point during his indoc and asked to pack his bags and leave. Remember the "be of good moral character" requirement for the ATP? Lying on an application is always grounds for termination in my experience. I would do what Rickair suggested and withdraw the application.

You can't break wind during a hurricane without someone finding out in this business!

 

Yeah Really! Why not spend $15 to save months of grief? We are professionals (even though most of us are not paid as such) and should act like it. Yes you would have grounds for a lawsuit but so what,? thats part of whats wrong with America!! (I'll SUE) If we made a better effort to prevent problems instead of being reactive our world wouldn't be the way it is now. Now people will not even act to help someone because they are afraid of being sued, really!