Emergency Declarartion Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

MarkZ said:
Correct, except that the ATC manager doesn't have a conference call. They just notify the DEN.
Click to expand...

Ok. I suppose it's not a "conference." Heard it was a pain having to call in and report it each time.
 
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Ron Levy said:
That's one of those questions I'd put in the "if you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question" category. No doubt some folks here would love the opportunity to go "Earl Weaver" with the various law enforcement or aviation security personnel they might get to meet upon landing, but I'm not one of them.
Click to expand...

Could be, and it's certainly not something I would do, but it's interesting to speculate on whether they would be able to come up with a statute or regulation that was violated by not answering.
 
Velocity173 said:
It's a conference call with ATC & DEN. DEN decides whether to investigate it or not.

If your VFR they shouldn't be calling at all. It's not required.
Click to expand...

They have never called me. Typically I'm on my way on FF and just inform them that I'm going to be landing somewhere that's different from the destination I gave before, so they ask "reason for diversion?" Since I typically don't plan my fuel stop until I'm in cruise and see what conditions really are, usually when I take off, I give them my final destination and land when it's fuel time.

It really doesn't bother me a bit, I mean, if I didn't want to tell them anything I wouldn't take FF and talk to them at all. I imagine if they asked for the reason and I said I've got about seventy five hundred of them, it may be interesting around landing time.
 
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Palmpilot said:
Could be, and it's certainly not something I would do, but it's interesting to speculate on whether they would be able to come up with a statute or regulation that was violated by not answering.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't need to do that in order to go out and meet you when you land, and once they do, there are a lot of things they have the authority to examine and to ask without specific evidence of any particular regulatory violation -- enough to make you wish you'd just said "I gotta go pee" in the first place. Like they say about being in the Army -- "The Army can't make you do anything, but they can definitely make you wish to God you had." :wink2:
 
Henning said:
I imagine if they asked for the reason and I said I've got about seventy five hundred of them, it may be interesting around landing time.
Click to expand...
I think it might be, but I also think they'd first give you the opportunity to make it clear that code wasn't what you were trying to communicate.
 
Ron Levy said:
Which "L word" is that? "Lawyer"? Because if you do, you'd be told by that attorney that the FAA has the absolute legal authority to examine your aircraft logbooks at any time and for any reason, or even just because they feel like it. And yes, this has been well tested all the way to the US Court of Appeals. The only legal protection you have in this area is that they must give you a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable location to produce them if you do not have them with you at the time of the request.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, then I'd turn my books over through my attorney when he agreed with what you say. Maybe it's an unnecessary expense, but you have to look at it like I was keeping it in context with the thread.

The OP was, the tower declared an emergency, not the pilot.

So, if anyone wanted to start playing hardball over a generator out that I did not declare as an emergency, then I think I might have a problem with being microscoped was all I was saying. Even while I sit here with clean books and a clean record. I might feel like somebody is on a fishing expedition for their own reasons, not mine or GA's. :redface:
 
Captain said:
'Passenger Request' also works very well. Matter of fact, I think anything other than, "because the guy with a gun wants to' would be fine.
Click to expand...
Unless maybe your flight plan lists only 1 on board -- not sure ATC sees that part though. In any case, from now on my answer is going to be "gotta pee", unless I really do need to declare.
 
kmox29 said:
I'll say it again: Emergencies are NOT pilot deviations. They are two very different events.
Click to expand...
No one said they were, so why are you repeating that? R&W said that they were handled the same way (through ATQA) as regards the post-event investigation. Very different assertion.
I'm not sure what you are asking with your question. Please clarify.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what you mean by "emergencies are not treated as pilot deviations". I tried to clarify the previous assertion that I had assumed was true (and R&W will correct me if I got it wrong).

I believe R&W is ex-FAA - I think (but could be mistaken) that he has said that he was an ASI some time ago. If you're contradicting what he said, my question is: who are you, and what are your qualifications, that I should trust your word over his?
 
azure said:
No one said they were, so why are you repeating that? R&W said that they were handled the same way (through ATQA) as regards the post-event investigation. Very different assertion.

It all depends on what you mean by "emergencies are not treated as pilot deviations". I tried to clarify the previous assertion that I had assumed was true (and R&W will correct me if I got it wrong).

I believe R&W is ex-FAA - I think (but could be mistaken) that he has said that he was an ASI some time ago. If you're contradicting what he said, my question is: who are you, and what are your qualifications, that I should trust your word over his?
Click to expand...

Kmox is an ASI. I am a former.

Understand that there are slight differences between regions in the FAA, Flight Standards as well as ATC.

Where one will require a certain procedure the next may variate it slightly. When I was in the Agency the region I was in, ATC would report emergencies as well as deviations through ATQA. The ATC folks (in my region) felt that if they reported everything they were doing their job, hence we got covered up with these. I suspect other regions and facilities used discretion in their reporting.

My point in all of this is simple: It's not a fishing expedition, it's simply a job function that requires the Inspector to complete a form and submit. 99% of them are done and over.
 
txflyer said:
If that is the case, then I'd turn my books over through my attorney when he agreed with what you say. Maybe it's an unnecessary expense, but you have to look at it like I was keeping it in context with the thread.

The OP was, the tower declared an emergency, not the pilot.

So, if anyone wanted to start playing hardball over a generator out that I did not declare as an emergency, then I think I might have a problem with being microscoped was all I was saying. Even while I sit here with clean books and a clean record. I might feel like somebody is on a fishing expedition for their own reasons, not mine or GA's. :redface:
Click to expand...
Do it any way you want, but if you have an alternator failure in flight, and as a result the FAA wants to see your maintenance records, it's not a "fishing expedition", it's an effort to find out if there's some problem somewhere that needs correcting in the interest of safety. That might be a mechanic who's not doing a good job of installing alternators, it might be a bad batch of alternators, it might be some bad alternator belts, it might be :dunno:. Point is they're not out looking to find a violation, they're just trying to help everyone be safe (or safer). Keep in mind that for those FSDO folks looking into something like this, "safety" really is their middle name (Aviation Safety Inspector) and your relationship with them can be mutually beneficial rather than adversarial -- and "adversarial" rarely works out well for the party having such a relationship with a Federal agency.
 
Last edited:
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Ron Levy said:
Do it any way you want, but if you have an alternator failure in flight, and as a result the FAA wants to see your maintenance records, it's not a "fishing expedition", it's an effort to find out if there's some problem somewhere that needs correcting in the interest of safety. That might be a mechanic who's not doing a good job of installing alternators, it might be a bad batch of alternators, it might be some bad alternator belts, it might be :dunno:. Point is they're not out looking to find a violation, they're just trying to help everyone be safe (or safer). Keep in mind that for those FSDO folks looking into something like this, "safety" really is their middle name (Aviation Safety Inspector) and your relationship with them can be mutually beneficial rather than adversarial -- and "adversarial" rarely works out well for the party having such a relationship with a Federal agency.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but I think it's worth asking whether "looking into something like this" can go so far that it has a net negative effect on safety, by discouraging aircraft owners from being forthcoming with ATC.

According to the pilot involved, the FAA guy asked for a complete AD compliance record, not just for ones involving the alternator. He also asked for the last 91.411 and 91.413 compliance records. What do transponder, altimeter system, and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections have to do with a failed alternator?

The average private aircraft owner doesn't have the army of people to deal with the FAA that the airlines have. I'm not an owner, but I can understand why such a detailed examination of records might make someone nervous and/or disinclined to attract FAA attention in the future.
 
Last edited:
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Palmpilot said:
That's all well and good, but I think it's worth asking whether "looking into something like this" can go so far that it has a net negative effect on safety, by discouraging aircraft owners from being forthcoming with ATC.

According to the pilot involved, the FAA guy asked for a complete AD compliance record, not just for ones involving the alternator. He also asked for the last 91.411 and 91.413 compliance records. What do transponder, altimeter system, and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections have to do with a failed alternator?

The average private aircraft owner doesn't have the army of people to deal with the FAA that the airlines have. I'm not an owner, but I can understand why such a detailed examination of records might make someone nervous and/or disinclined to attract FAA attention in the future.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind one thing when you hear these stories, there is usually more than what's being told.

Without the "whole story" no one here really knows what is going on, but with my experience it's usually more than what's being told.
 
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

RotorAndWing said:
Keep in mind one thing when you hear these stories, there is usually more than what's being told.

Without the "whole story" no one here really knows what is going on, but with my experience it's usually more than what's being told.
Click to expand...

Can we just assume that there's no problem then?
 
Okay, I'm of the opinion a big chunk of this country is afraid of big brother and the government can't hand out hugs without many looking for ulterior motives.

So, let's give it a go and weight it towards the fearfuls fear...

Flying along the electrics quit. You land and determine the altanator quit and set about getting it fixed. That day you get a call from an FAA inspector who wants to see the Mx records for all the reasons Ron said. You agree in the interest of safety.

So the fed shows up and reviews who did what to the altanator. While looking he notices a mandatory AD hasn't been complied with. Confirming that he goes to the plane to check a serial number and notices the VOR check is out and was out during the flight in question.

So...did this just screw the pilot who was trying to be helpful or is the inspector going to realize none of this would have been known to him if there wasn't cooperation and over look it with a simple request to 'get 'er done'?

My hunch is no violations will be handed out.
 
azure said:
No one said they were, so why are you repeating that? R&W said that they were handled the same way (through ATQA) as regards the post-event investigation. Very different assertion.
Click to expand...

I was repeating it because I didn't want people to believe the two were related at all. They're not. Currently, they're not handled through ATQA (I can't speak for before I came to the Agency).

azure said:
It all depends on what you mean by "emergencies are not treated as pilot deviations". I tried to clarify the previous assertion that I had assumed was true (and R&W will correct me if I got it wrong).
Click to expand...

Understood. I wasn't trying to be snarky. I just wanted to make sure people understood that the two are not related. My greatest fear is that someone won't declare an emergency because of what the FAA might do to them. While I can't speak for every single Inspector out there, I know how our office works and we DO NOT go on fishing trips.

azure said:
I believe R&W is ex-FAA - I think (but could be mistaken) that he has said that he was an ASI some time ago. If you're contradicting what he said, my question is: who are you, and what are your qualifications, that I should trust your word over his?
Click to expand...

I believe R&W answered this question a few posts after yours. You don't have to trust my word, if you don't care to. In fact, information learned from message boards and forums should ALWAYS be checked for accuracy in your local area.

Believe it or not, the FAA does actually try to have a standard operation. However, because we oversee diverse areas of the our country, this is not always possible.

#flysafe

ps - I'm not here on any fishing expedition either. I used to frequent another message board, answering regulatory and FAA questions as they came up. I also try to clear up any myths about the FAA and how Inspectors do their job. However that message board became nothing more than a half dozen people name-calling, and ruining it for everyone else, so I left.
 
Captain said:
So...did this just screw the pilot who was trying to be helpful or is the inspector going to realize none of this would have been known to him if there wasn't cooperation and over look it with a simple request to 'get 'er done'?

My hunch is no violations will be handed out.
Click to expand...

Every situation is a little bit different. The ASI shouldn't "overlook" it and here's why: It could cost the ASI their job if it ever was reported back that they saw a violation such as AD non-compliance (a fairly significant safety issue) and did nothing about it.

Now, there are many tools that an ASI has, other than opening up an Enforcement Investigative Report. But it's going to depend on the ASI's office policy, the attitude of the airman, the nature of the AD non-compliance, etc. In fact, because there are so many variables, I generally refrain from commenting on hypothetical scenarios. It wouldn't be fair for me to tell you one thing, have the hypothetical event happen, and for you to experience another thing.

#flysafe
 
Kmox29 - thank you for your answers. It seems you and R&W are in agreement that the answers to my question depend somewhat on FSDO and also that even local procedures may have changed since R&W left the agency.

I'm still not sure we all agree on what a "fishing expedition" is though. Is it fishing if an inspector following up on an alternator failure asks to see the whole AD compliance list for an aircraft without having already found an uncomplied-with AD?
 
"We were able to help the maintenance facility modify their procedures so the mistake wouldn't be repeated. . . . . ."
It should be mandatory that a recording of that conversation be posted for aircraft owners to review.

Yup, the FSDO inspector is not out to get you.
OTOH, some of you might remember the two that 'inspected' Bob Hoover.
Once bit, twice shy, baby.

The really major problem folks like me have with the FAA/DOT is the courts excusing them from obeying the Constitution that everyone else has to follow. A major judicial error that still needs action by Congress.
 
azure said:
I'm still not sure we all agree on what a "fishing expedition" is though. Is it fishing if an inspector following up on an alternator failure asks to see the whole AD compliance list for an aircraft without having already found an uncomplied-with AD?
Click to expand...

To answer that, you need to know the whole story, not just the side presented on the forum.

Like I said, in my experience as an Inspector there is always more to the story than meets the eye. And in this instance I don't see it any different.
 
I believe about half the "there I was" stories on forums. There's a lot of exageration going about to either make the story more interesting or controversial. Unless it's Henning, then it's always fact.
 
All I can add to this long and interesting discussion is that R&W's position is 100% in agreement with the attitude and goals of the two FAA flight standards inspectors that I've had the privilege of knowing. To me, his word goes a long way.

Except the part about Henning.
 
Last edited:
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

RotorAndWing said:
To answer that, you need to know the whole story, not just the side presented on the forum.

Like I said, in my experience as an Inspector there is always more to the story than meets the eye. And in this instance I don't see it any different.
Click to expand...

Beware of that word "always"!
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
To answer that, you need to know the whole story, not just the side presented on the forum.

Like I said, in my experience as an Inspector there is always more to the story than meets the eye. And in this instance I don't see it any different.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was simply posing a hypothetical...
 
kmox29 said:
Believe it or not, the FAA does actually try to have a standard operation. However, because we oversee diverse areas of the our country, this is not always possible.
Click to expand...


I'd love to know how my "diverse area of the country" affects how an inspector decides to handle looking over my "diverse" 182 and me the oh so "diverse" pilot...

... when we're all held to the same training, certification, and maintenance standards.

Not picking on you personally, but I think you need a better excuse for different FSDOs behaving like they aren't part of the same company.

I don't think blaming it on our "diversity" is going to cut it. Diversity in inspectors and a lack of organizational discipline certainly does.

(Let's call every FSDO tomorrow and ask what the rules are for temporarily mounting a GoPro on a strut of a 172. LOL. Your assertion that the differing answers are caused by the "diversity" of GoPros, 172s, and pilots served... Isn't going to be the reason why the answers aren't the same.)
 
denverpilot said:
I'd love to know how my "diverse area of the country" affects how an inspector decides to handle looking over my "diverse" 182 and me the oh so "diverse" pilot...

... when we're all held to the same training, certification, and maintenance standards.

Not picking on you personally, but I think you need a better excuse for different FSDOs behaving like they aren't part of the same company.

I don't think blaming it on our "diversity" is going to cut it. Diversity in inspectors and a lack of organizational discipline certainly does.

(Let's call every FSDO tomorrow and ask what the rules are for temporarily mounting a GoPro on a strut of a 172. LOL. Your assertion that the differing answers are caused by the "diversity" of GoPros, 172s, and pilots served... Isn't going to be the reason why the answers aren't the same.)
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:
 
RotorAndWing said:
:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...


You can roll your eyes all you like, but the fact remains that there's always been significant inconsistencies out of the individual FSDOs.

Blaming that on the "diversity" of the served, is a total cop-out. And I really don't care.

I'm just pointing out that a smarter/better lie is needed. That one is too easy to refute. I'm only pointing out the logical fallacy.

You can't call all the FSDOs tomorrow and get one consistent answer on that example topic presented, and you know it. That's not the fault of the served. Nor anything to do with their "diversity".
 
denverpilot said:
You can roll your eyes all you like, but the fact remains that there's always been significant inconsistencies out of the individual FSDOs.

Blaming that on the "diversity" of the served, is a total cop-out. And I really don't care.

I'm just pointing out that a smarter/better lie is needed. That one is too easy to refute. I'm only pointing out the logical fallacy.

You can't call all the FSDOs tomorrow and get one consistent answer on that example topic presented, and you know it. That's not the fault of the served. Nor anything to do with their "diversity".
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:

:frown2:
 
RotorAndWing said:
:rolleyes2:

:frown2:
Click to expand...


That's not an answer. That's just you not liking the facts.

Call em tomorrow. Get the definitive answer on that topic in one day from every FSDO. Provide names of who you spoke with. I dare ya.

You're even a former insider so my bet is rigged against me. You can warn them that I've challenged ya even.

But they have 24 hours and names must be provided.

It's not like that question I used as an example hasn't been asked numerous times of every FSDO over the course of YEARS now.
 
denverpilot said:
That's not an answer. That's just you not liking the facts.

Call em tomorrow. Get the definitive answer on that topic in one day from every FSDO. Provide names of who you spoke with. I dare ya.

You're even a former insider so my bet is rigged against me. You can warn them that I've challenged ya even.

But they have 24 hours and names must be provided.

It's not like that question I used as an example hasn't been asked numerous times of every FSDO over the course of YEARS now.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:

Nate, just yet another one of your inane diatribes...........:rolleyes2:
 
RotorAndWing said:
:popcorn:

Nate, just yet another one of your inane diatribes...........:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Actually, Rotor, not.

My old '57 172 was---shall we say---highly modified. I lived in Arkansas at the time and learned the hard way to not have any mods done to it in Missouri. The LIT FSDO was far easier to work with in getting field approvals than the KC FSDO was. It was like they were from separate planets.
 
RotorAndWing said:
:popcorn:

Nate, just yet another one of your inane diatribes...........:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...


You can throw personal insults around all you like. It's against the rules here, but no one actually enforces it. Not for you anyway. You've been sneaking in personal attacks for years with no consequences.

You will note that as usual, I've made none.

It doesn't change the fact that you can't call the FSDOs and get a straight answer on that topic. There's plenty more examples.

Like I said, I don't care. I do care if someone says it's about some made up "diversity" excuse. Yup. Sure. Whatever. Is all the pilot's fault they live in the wrong FSDOs area. LOL. Darn those diverse pilots! ;)

I've seen very smart folks try to get an answer to that one and fail. They've compared notes privately and no two answers given by any FSDO were the same.

There is nothing "diverse" about strapping a GoPro to a strut of a 172 in NY vs doing the same in California. 66

I'd like to hear what the guy who posted it has to say. He said it.

Meanwhile... what do you care, anyway?

I've never seen you try to feed that line of bull to anyone about "diversity" between FSDOs. I suspect from everything I've read from you that wouldn't ever be your style.

It's a discussion board. I'm discussing. Don't really give a crap if you don't like it. Three emoticons and a personal insult aren't why I come here. But if I can be a target for your non-responses to spare someone else, I'm fine with that.

You also know I'm willing to be shown where I'm wrong. Put your money where the eyeball rolls are and post the answers and names. A general guideline document on whether strapping little cameras to airplane struts is legal from the very people who create, enforce, and can amend any aviation law in the land, should be a no-brainer after hundreds of YouTube videos have already been done by those willing to take a risk with their privileges.

What's your weird beef tonight? You escaped. Government service is most often a massive waste of talent, you probably included, from what I've read. You're back to flying an airplane instead of an iPad. I think that's very cool.

You shouldn't feel any compulsion to defend silly statements like the "diversity" one anymore, though. They weren't even your words.

He can answer. He's a big boy. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
You can throw personal insults around all you like. It's against the rules here, but no one actually enforces it. Not for you anyway. You've been sneaking in personal attacks for years with no consequences.
Click to expand...

It was a statement of fact.

Inane : adjective silly

Diatribe: noun: diatribe; a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.

So in my opinion your rant (diatribe) against the FAA was silly (inane).

I simply posted an emoticon after your post and your response is a long winded diatribe, so I responded.

G'night Nate.
 
I'd agree with RW in that there is some "diversity" involved. It's impossible not to have it. There are rules and then there are techniques and intuitions. I'm sure they have some discretion as to what to investigate and what not to investigate.

Same as ATC when it comes to PDs. That's we always say to be polite on the phone when you get assigned the number to call. It's not set in stone that you're going to get the PD sent to the FSDO. One controller might report it, another may not. If it's a "snitch patch", well then it's out of their hands.

Reports (change of destination) to the DEN aren't always investigated either. ATC calls it in and then whomever is working at the DEN decides if it's worth a follow up.

These people working in these agencies aren't robots, at least most of them aren't. There isn't a perfect playbook that covers all scenarios either.
 
Velocity173 said:
I'd agree with RW in that there is some "diversity" involved. It's impossible not to have it. There are rules and then there are techniques and intuitions. I'm sure they have some discretion as to what to investigate and what not to investigate.

Same as ATC when it comes to PDs. That's we always say to be polite on the phone when you get assigned the number to call. It's not set in stone that you're going to get the PD sent to the FSDO. One controller might report it, another may not. If it's a "snitch patch", well then it's out of their hands.

Reports (change of destination) to the DEN aren't always investigated either. ATC calls it in and then whomever is working at the DEN decides if it's worth a follow up.

These people working in these agencies aren't robots, at least most of them aren't. There isn't a perfect playbook that covers all scenarios either.
Click to expand...
This. In reality, I doubt anyone would want to see airtight policies where the folks in the FAA have no discretion. That also goes for the rest of the legal system.
 
This is such a silly faux debate. Anyone who has owned airplanes for more than a few years knows that there are inexplicable inconsistencies between FSDOs. There is simply no debating it.

And, I'm sorry, calling a lost alternator an "emergency" is simply stupid. Alternators in light aircraft are optional, fail with regularity, and it's perfectly legal to fly NORDO in aircraft with no electrical system at all. Therefore, losing an alternator (something that has happened to me multiple times, in every airplane I've owned) in VFR conditions is a non-event that any pilot should be able to deal with without someone rolling the trucks.

Now, isn't it time to debate high-wing vs. low-wing yet?
:)
 
Jay Honeck said:
And, I'm sorry, calling a lost alternator an "emergency" is simply stupid. Alternators in light aircraft are optional, fail with regularity, and it's perfectly legal to fly NORDO in aircraft with no electrical system at all. Therefore, losing an alternator (something that has happened to me multiple times, in every airplane I've owned) in VFR conditions is a non-event that any pilot should be able to deal with without someone rolling the trucks.
Click to expand...

Jay,

You (and really, all of us) could benefit by reading this article. Yes, the entire thing.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182061-1.html?redirected=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top