Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-03-2021, 02:59 PM   #71  
On Reserve
 
Electrickjet's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Position: B777 CA
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
That poorly formed opinion was an emergency revocation that cost six hundred thousand in legal fees, and a lot more in terms of reputation, loss of availability, certification, and other damages.

Hoover's case had no evidence, either. Far from substantial, or a preponderance. Light on substance. Heavy on bull****.

Weaponized regulation, abuse of power. Typical.
Agreed, my post didn't come across with the right tone. I wasn't trying to minimize Mr. Hoover's plight whatsoever but did try to (unsuccessfully) indicate that it was an over zealous ASI that instigated the whole debacle without a shred of evidence.

Thanks for the tune up JB.
Electrickjet is offline  
Old 05-03-2021, 08:32 PM   #72  
Disinterested Third Party
 
JohnBurke's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,680
Default

The thing is, the inspectors don't do anything but investigate and then initiate enforcement. An overzealous ASI (several, in this case) started the ball rolling, but the enforcement process is driven by lawyers, not inspectors. Regional legal counsels are the ones that pick up the ball and run with it.

The problem with the Hoover case was that it demonstrated the corruption at the inspector level (FSDO level), with enforcement initiated as a weapon, not as a tool of safety. The other problem was that the first problem could have been fixed by dropping the enforcement action. Instead, the legal counsel doubled down and took it the distance.

There's a reason that inspectors are never allowed to interpret the regulation. That authority is delegated to the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. Inspectors can read the regulation, and apply it according to their understanding (which is all to frequently very, wrong), but they're not entrusted with interpretation of the regulation. Ever. When they misapply it so badly as to use it as a weapon to hurt airmen, their true character is laid bare. The bigger question is why those with the greater share of power, the attorneys, choose to promulgate the lie and the deception, and magnify it.

In a world where the FAA racketeers by engaging a very select few designated examiners and allows them to charge a ridiculous sum of money to do what the inspector should be doing for no charge (as a public servant on the taxpayer dime), it's little surprise that the FAA smacked Ms. Lunken down and used her designated examiner status as currency in 2016 when she had the runaway cub. Most likely the enforcement act of someone who never hand-propped an airplane or flew one without an electrical system. To call all this overreach would be generous. It should be called criminal, and should be subject to oversight and prosecution. Pity, it's not.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-03-2021, 10:48 PM   #73  
All is fine at .79
 
TiredSoul's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 2,606
Default

Despite the fact that Hoover’s issues with the FAA were beyond ridiculous I don’t think its necessary to habitually drag it into the discussion as that was 30 years ago.
Lunken apparently pushed too many buttons for too long and the lack of judgment and the subsequent coverup attempt where she tried to drag an A&P into it is troubling.
What is even more troubling is that the FAA seems to have found a new hammer in the ADS-B rule which is clearly not intended for light GA “shenanigans”.
It does make me more and more uneasy even participating in light GA as a hiccup there could turn into a cluster with an overzealous FAA going after the “airline guy”.
As stated before I would never interact with the FAA in any investigation without legal representation. Shame really, you could just talk to them.
No offense to JnB as he appears to be a decent person but the few don’t change the overall mentality at a FSDO.
TiredSoul is offline  
Old 05-04-2021, 05:03 PM   #74  
Line Holder
 
takingmessages's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
So you experience a catastrophic engine failure, you land the plane and keep everyone safe. That means you are a bad pilot because you had an accident?
Well...
I didn't know about this and I haven't seen it mentioned it here, but I consider it to be an important piece of information that should be more generally disseminated, because I have seen this observation (or question) before in this forum.

I Just very recently had a catastrophic failure that lead me to the pesky "unscheduled off-field landing".
In this case over a densely packed and fast moving interstate.

The landing was pretty good, but the parking job sucked...

I learned 2 things:
1.- The turbulence generated by thousands of cars 100-200 ft apart moving at 70-80 MPH in a virtual canyon when you are negotiating a gap in the traffic is enough to make your life pretty (and interestingly) busy in those final moments.

Pretty, pretty busy...

But most importantly yet, number:
2.- There is a box in the FAA accident investigation form for the pilot information. That box gets filled only when the pilot had any influence over such accident. In my case, it was obvious from the get go (and merely hours after the NTSB inspected the aircraft) that I had had a major malfunction. The investigator was nice and available, and sent me copies of the form showing the empty box, which rendered the accident anonymous to the eyes of the FAA.

With that said, a couple of crumbs were left behind to link me to the accident: the insurance claim (because I sustained minor injures) and the #$% youtube videos (I had to land in front of a dash cam) and press coverage meant to immortalize my brief predicament for eternity.

Ah well, we will die someday...
takingmessages is offline  
Old 05-04-2021, 05:43 PM   #75  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NewGuy01's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 562
Default

“In airplane circles, I’m a legend” is now part of my standard briefing.

I’m also having a custom license plate holder being made up. As well as bumper stickers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NewGuy01 is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 02:57 PM   #76  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jaxsurf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
Are you genuinely curious? You do seem to miss the point with some consistency. You quoted me discussing the temptation of the act for which Ms. Lunken is punished, and mocked that temptation. You quoted me mentioning that I've felt that temptation many times, and mocked my quote, suggesting that temptation means nothing. Okay, fine. Temptation means nothing without action, you say.

Because I speak for myself and not for you or anyone else, I use my own experiences and words, and as you mocked my words and suggested that "temptation" is meaningless or irrelevant, I also included my own experience, which is having done what Ms. Lunken did, thousands of times over the span of the last four decades. And no, it's not that big of a deal. Not once did the universe shudder from its foundation. Not once did scores of children follow the act and die in droves, and not once did the national airspace rend in two and fall tattered to the national floor in a puddle of collective tears. In fact, nothing happened.

Now, should the uninitiated be diving under powerlines and bridges and other obstacles, without reason and without cause, and without adequate training and experience? No. Hence the regulation. There is a big difference between flying under a bridge with several hundred feet vertically and laterally, and passing under a lower, tighter object.

You may not feel any sympathy for Ms. Lunken. You're under no obligation to do so. We might postulate all day long about comparisons, but the fact is that her actions did not rise to the level of revocation of all her certification. Were you to bust an altitude or land on a taxiway or have a runway incursion, to revoke your certificates would be extreme overkill; a suspension would be in order, and you'd almost certainly have prevented that by availing yourself of ASRS, ASAP, etc. If you were to lose everything you ever worked for and all your certification, others might say you brought it on yourself, because you may have violated the regulation....but the fact is that you wouldn't have invited more on yourself than perhaps administrative action. The nuclear option, revocation, not so much.

No, Ms. Lunken did not bring revocation on herself. Certainly she brought a potential investigation on herself, but this is not what happened. Well past the stale complaint rule, she received a revocation long after the fact. Not a letter of investigation. Not a legal exchange; this was a hooveresque emergency action; a revocation with the implication that Ms Lunken is a public danger, and a danger to herself, which is pure bull****. She's a wealth of experience, and a little old lady who happens to have five + decades of experience (who should have known better), but who did nothing that rose to the level of revocation.

Over-reach would be an extreme understatement, here.
Yes, I was genuinely curious. You say that doing illegal things is no big deal. Fine, I disagree.

I still think that telling the FAA you shouldn't be punished when caught doing illegal things because those things were really tempting to do and you're a weak person who can't resist temptation is stupid, so we definitely disagree there.

As to the rest, I do agree with you.
jaxsurf is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 06:13 PM   #77  
Disinterested Third Party
 
JohnBurke's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxsurf View Post
You say that doing illegal things is no big deal.
I said no such thing.

YOU just said that. Speak for yourself, and make no attempt to put words in my mouth. I speak quite well for myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxsurf View Post
I still think that telling the FAA you shouldn't be punished when caught doing illegal things because those things were really tempting to do and you're a weak person who can't resist temptation is stupid, so we definitely disagree there.
.
We disagree? You're inferring that I have at some point in time stated otherwise? Again, speak for yourself, if able. Not for me. I said no such thing. Ms. Lunken didn't, either.

Ms. Lunken did not tell the FAA that she shoud not be punished. Additionally, she did not attempt to avoid punishment, on the basis of temptation, or otherwise. She was clear that she did fly under the bridge, and she stated that she understood that a penalty may apply.

No one has stated differently.

Revocation for all certification? That's bull****. A suspension, perhaps. But revocation? Absolute chicken**** inappropriate response, and extreme overkill.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 06:30 PM   #78  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jaxsurf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
I said no such thing.

YOU just said that. Speak for yourself, and make no attempt to put words in my mouth. I speak quite well for myself.
You said: "I also included my own experience, which is having done what Ms. Lunken did, thousands of times over the span of the last four decades. And no, it's not that big of a deal."

You literally said you broke the rules, just as she did, and then went on to say it's not a big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
We disagree? You're inferring that I have at some point in time stated otherwise? Again, speak for yourself, if able. Not for me. I said no such thing. Ms. Lunken didn't, either.

Ms. Lunken did not tell the FAA that she shoud not be punished. Additionally, she did not attempt to avoid punishment, on the basis of temptation, or otherwise. She was clear that she did fly under the bridge, and she stated that she understood that a penalty may apply.

No one has stated differently.
Cool, a misunderstanding on my part then.
jaxsurf is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 10:16 PM   #79  
Disinterested Third Party
 
JohnBurke's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxsurf View Post
You said: "I also included my own experience, which is having done what Ms. Lunken did, thousands of times over the span of the last four decades. And no, it's not that big of a deal."

You literally said you broke the rules, just as she did, and then went on to say it's not a big deal.


Cool, a misunderstanding on my part then.
No, not cool, and no, I did not say I did anything illegal. I did not say I broke the rules. YOU said that.

A false accusation on your part, and poor reading comprehension. Try again.

I said that flight under an obstacle is not a big deal and that I have done it thousands of times.

You make a lot of assumptions and seem to rely on your own falsehoods, while contributing nothing of substance to the discussion or the original topic. Why?
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-06-2021, 03:39 AM   #80  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jaxsurf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
No, not cool, and no, I did not say I did anything illegal. I did not say I broke the rules. YOU said that.
This is a thread about a lady breaking the rules and getting her tickets yanked. You said you’ve done the same thing thousands of times. What am I missing here?
jaxsurf is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Red Bull Air Race Tickets Qwerty320 Hangar Talk 1 09-02-2016 10:54 AM
Speeding tickets TylerbPilot11 Career Questions 13 12-18-2011 05:23 AM
Should I list Traffic tickets more than 10 yr bcpilot Career Questions 31 10-31-2011 04:48 AM
go! offers $1 one-way tickets vagabond Hangar Talk 10 06-12-2007 10:08 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:05 PM.