I got reported to the FAA (not a ******* Satire)

murphey said:
There are CAP CFis that will provide instruction but not on Orides and only under specific rules. Why? because a cadet is not allowed to solo in a CAP aircraft.
Click to expand...
Um, yes they are, where on earth did you hear that? There used to be a restriction on Cadets training/soloing in High Performance aircraft, but I don't even see that restriction any more. Now, of course being CAP there are plenty of rules, but cadets not soloing is not one of them.
 
Didn't we have a newly minted CFI complaining about a lack of hours lately? (POA needs a tinfoil hat smiley)
 
bflynn said:
The investigation is carried out under subpar B. PBOR only applies to actions taken under parts C, D and E.

Was I reading outdated text?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you were reading, so I'm guessing.

Very early on, the FAA took the position that something more than an informal inquiry was needed to trigger the PBR. That continued in the early days of the Compliance Philosophy - no "Letter of Investigation" would be issued and, therefore, no need for a PBR advisory. IOW, it wasn't an "investigation" until there was a "Letter of Investigation." The problem was obvious - you get someone to admit a deviation under the masthead of the" Compliance Philosophy" and then use the admission in the later certificate action.

The criminal equivalent happens all the time. A suspect is brought in for so-called "non-custodial" questioning, so no Miranda is required. Promises are made, lies are made about what evidence the police have, and admissions or conflicting statements are obtained. Bam! Now you are in custody charged with a crime.

The FAA's position didn't last very long. ASIs are at least required to provide the brochure advising of PBR rights upon the initial inquiry. Here's the relevant language from FSIMS (my emphasis):

14-1-3-7 WHEN WRITTEN PBR NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. Except for instances when giving the required notification under the PBR would threaten the integrity of the investigation as described in paragraph 14‑1‑3‑13, AFS personnel provide timely written notification of investigation in these circumstances:
A. Providing the PBR Notification via the Brochure. When AFS personnel first inquire into the nature and circumstances of apparent noncompliance, they provide the Brochure to the airman. AFS personnel note the nature of the investigation in the space provided in the Brochure. AFS personnel provide the Brochure even if they initially expect to resolve the noncompliance with compliance action. AFS personnel provide the Brochure to encourage open and transparent discussion under CP, to inform the airman of his or her rights under PBR, and to preserve FAA legal rights to use the information collected if enforcement action is later determined necessary.

1) Inquiries Involving Air Traffic Data. Where an FAA inquiry into apparent noncompliance involves air traffic data, time is of the essence because some air traffic data is routinely destroyed or disposed of in the ordinary course of business (see Volume 7, Chapter 1, Section 2 for additional information on data collection from FAA and contractor sources and coordination with Air Traffic personnel). In such a case, inspectors provide the Brochure to involved airmen in a timely manner. The inspector documents the date the Brochure was provided in the investigative PTRS record and includes this information in the EIR if one is opened. See additional information on air traffic data in paragraph 14‑1‑3‑15.
NOTE: If initial contact is made with an airman over the telephone, comply with subparagraph 14‑1‑3‑5C before substantively discussing the issue or event.

2) Inquiries Arising During Routine Contact with Airmen. Inspectors frequently have contact with airmen in the ordinary course of FAA oversight responsibilities (e.g., during a ramp inspection or during surveillance of a certificate‑holding entity where the airman is employed). The PBR does not apply during routine contacts with airman because these contacts are not airman‑focused investigations which could lead to certificate action. However, if in the course of routine contact, the inspector becomes aware of what may be a deviation from a statutory or regulatory requirement by an airman and the inspector wants to continue interviewing the airman, the inspector at that point would be conducting an “investigation” as that term is used in the PBR. Accordingly, to comply with the PBR, the inspector must provide timely written notification using the Brochure, unless, as described in paragraph 14‑1‑3‑13, providing the notification at that time would threaten the integrity of the investigation. Before providing the Brochure to the airman, AFS personnel note the nature of the investigation in the space provided in the Brochure. Date of the airman's receipt of the Brochure must be entered by the inspector in an appropriate PTRS or SAS record (the surveillance activity which led to the discovery or an investigation record opened for the inquiry) and included in the EIR if one is later opened.​
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
So there I was (Its my birthday and I am full of Dogfish Head 120 so bare with the lack of continuity)
I started a new job on Wed and on day 1 I was all "awe yeah whose you're IT Director?"

3/4 through the day, I get a phone call and the # is not one I know but it is local so I answer.

A dude says "This is Ad*m H*nderson (that could be any name) from the North Texas FSDO"
My first thought is that @EdFred is jacking with me.

I go "sure dude! what's up?"

He says "I can't talk to you. I need to send you an email, you need to respond that you have received and understand it and then you can call me back and we can talk"

I am so stoked that EdFred is going to email me a photo of his junk.

BUT..... I check my email and I see this message from A*dam Hende*son @ FAA.Gov

WTF???????????????????????????????????????

2 attachments.

First was this:

View attachment 68293


The second attachment was a Bible of information but this was what mattered:.

View attachment 68294


"I may be receiving compensation for acting as a flight instructor"

WTF????????????????????

I have NEVER even taken anyone's pro-rata share of fuel for a flight.

I called the guy back expecting him to tell me someone claimed I was making instructional videos and maybe getting paid from youtube ads or something.

Sit down now...

He says this:

"a member of an aviation related facebook group took a screenshot of a comment you made and sent it to the FAA so we need to investigate"

I asked "what was the comment?"

Someone posted on a Texas pilots facebook group asking "can someone recommend a local CFI to teach me to fly?"

I responded:

"I can teach you but I am not a CFI so it won't be legal which is why I have a cash only, under the table policy but I'm good :) "

Someone sent that to the FAA and now I have to take my logbooks, cert, medical, etc to the local FSDO and some explain that I am not receiving money for flight instruction.

I don't care so much about having to go through the motions but I can't believe the FAA takes seriously a FB comment and I think whomever reported me is a pathetic spineless p*ssy.

Why do they want my logbooks? What currency requirements are there for facebook posts?
I could see if they saw a video of me flying through a cloud or something but this is NOT aviation related at all.

I will go to the FSDO next week and I will play nice but this is ********
Click to expand...

Wow, that’s messed up!

Make sure your logs and BFRs and flights for currency are all are up to snuff, they’ll also probably do a little fishing too

*oh and lawyer time.
 
Last edited:
Happy Birthday Bryan and congratulations on your new job. When you’re through with the interview be sure to look back as you walk out the door and say, “you didn't really think I would bring the log book with the CFI hours in it, did you?” :D

Good luck
 
..Sigh..

So..you write this on the internet:
I can teach you but I am not a CFI so it won't be legal which is why I have a cash only, under the table policy but I'm good :)
Click to expand...
And now you find yourself subject to an investigation by a federal agency.

So then you decide to go and write these posts:
AfAvVLd

Dz2k9NS


I’d suggest you stop...pilot certificates are expensive. Go read my first post. I’m not sure if you’ve ever went and spoke with folks in the FSDO (I have). They do not have the sense of humor that you seem to think they have. They also have enough power to make things miserable.

Seriously man..that first post is enough cause to throw you in handcuffs as soon as you walk in for your “meeting”. That second? Maybe enough to give them reason to take action, afterall, multiple times you’re suggesting you’ve provided illegal instruction. The FAA does NOT need to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to end your aviating days.
 
Last edited:
@SixPapaCharlie - I am guessing since this wasn't a flight related incident they won't ask you to bring aircraft logs. However it is possible. I would advise only bringing what they require and nothing extra - until they also ask for it.

Because they are all about compliance they will most likely scour all the logs you provide. It only takes one thing for them to find you out of compliance and have to do whatever they deem necessary to get back in compliance. For my runway incursion the aircraft logs were required and were reviewed. They found a simple item and turned it into more of a lesson so I though they treated me better than I was fearing. And it can of course get more weird. Lets say your Cirrus has a log issue or some of your required training flights don't add up...they can then move onto your instructors, mechanic's ,etc.

My advice would be to go in, be nice and answer their questions. I am pretty sure that any sarcasm (or worse) that day will just dig the hole deeper/faster.

I know of someone else who had a landing incident. The last I heard they scoured his logs and he was then scheduled for a check ride with someone from the FAA. I am not sure how his checkride went (I can probably find out). But I am sure anyone in a position of giving check rides can set you up to fail. So being nice and forthcoming can probably just avoid them taking things further to where you can not possibly pass or comply.

Maybe you should file a NASA/ASRS report now :)

And I hope you can find out who reported you. Everyone knows your videos are satire and in good fun....well everyone but one person I guess.
 
jesse said:
..Sigh..

So..you write this on the internet:

And now you find yourself subject to an investigation by a federal agency.

So then you decide to go and write these posts:
AfAvVLd

Dz2k9NS


I’d suggest you stop...pilot certificates are expensive. Go read my first post. I’m not sure if you’ve ever went and spoke with folks in the FSDO (I have). They do not have the sense of humor that you seem to think they have. They also have enough power to make things miserable.

Seriously man..that first post is enough cause to throw you in handcuffs as soon as you walk in for your “meeting”. That second? Maybe enough to give them reason to take action, afterall, multiple times you’re suggesting you’ve provided illegal instruction. The FAA does NOT need to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to end your aviating days.
Click to expand...

No.

Frankly giving into PC culture and the little ninnies is how this country gets even more messed up.

He didn’t do anything wrong, just make sure he has his ducks in line, talk to a lawyer, and I’d also see about recording all this government nonsense and letting the world see it and laugh at it for what it is.

Also look at places like England, the police have dragged people into the stations for questioning over non call to violence tweets, yet don’t have the resources to catch burglars, by accepting the bad behavior the FAA is demonstrating is how that type of nonsense happens.

I’m not a gofunme kinda guy, but I’d be happy to kick in a c note if he started one to get a lawyer and put the FAA on blast.
 
Last edited:
so....if he asks us to stroke is virtual FB pilot ego....is that considered compensation?:confused:
 
Hmmmm......

Suppose Bryan wasn't a pilot, just SGOTI who made such a humorous post. What would or could the FAA do? Anything?
 
And, this isn't really about the FAA being douchebags, it's the FaceBook guy who started the whole mess.
I'm not an FAA lover, but I think they are doing what their policy says they have to....investigate.

I'd go talk to them respectfully, show them what they want and hopefully it will be over. If they do press the issue, then I'd look at lawyers and next steps.

Enjoy your birthday, and have some cake....just don't try to teach it to fly ;)
 
It’s not innocent until proven guilty. You have no right to a pilots certificate. They can revoke it if they want. You didn’t answer your DPE satirically during your checkride, this is no different.

I think you are playing with fire having this discussion publicly, and adding fuel to the fire with further satirical comments about breaking the rules.
 
Sad they have it all wrong. You are not allowed to give lessons. But is this going to change when my check ride is scheduled for my commercial :tongue2:
 
jesse said:
..Sigh..

So..you write this on the internet:

And now you find yourself subject to an investigation by a federal agency.

So then you decide to go and write these posts:
AfAvVLd

Dz2k9NS


I’d suggest you stop...pilot certificates are expensive. Go read my first post. I’m not sure if you’ve ever went and spoke with folks in the FSDO (I have). They do not have the sense of humor that you seem to think they have. They also have enough power to make things miserable.

Seriously man..that first post is enough cause to throw you in handcuffs as soon as you walk in for your “meeting”. That second? Maybe enough to give them reason to take action, afterall, multiple times you’re suggesting you’ve provided illegal instruction. The FAA does NOT need to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to end your aviating days.
Click to expand...

You afraid of your own shadow??
 
TCABM said:
The videos aren’t the subject of the investigation. They don even need to be discussed.
Click to expand...

You are the clueless sort aren’t you. You can’t even follow a simple conversation. I was replying to the following post.

murphey said:
Don't use the word sarcasm....highly negative perception. Use satire instead. Yes, a minor and to some irrelevant difference, but "satire" is protected speech, under certain circumstances, and "sarcasm" isn't.
Click to expand...

Which was a reply to this post which brought up the videos.

rtk11 said:
I think you should ask if you have any rights to know who is bringing these allegations against you. See if you can find out who the humorless, “sad sack of an excuse for a human being” is who reported you for your post.

There is nothing you can do at this point other than to do exactly what you’re doing - demonstrate that it was posted as sarcasm, that you have a YouTube channel of sarcastic videos, that you’ve been recognized for your sarcasm, and clearly the post was made in jest, but clearly someone misunderstood, and any further posts of the like will be followed by a disclaimer.

Sorry to read of the hassles, Bryan.
Click to expand...

But I guess it’s too complicated for you to grasp.

Besides, it isn’t up to you to decide what anyone, let alone me, decides to discuss on this thread or any other thread.

And if you don’t think the FAA already knows about the videos, you are even less bright than I thought.
 
If the call came in through the FAA hotline the are supposed to investigate it.
Click to expand...

What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of the hotline?
(full-blown investigation as they are putting Bryan through doesn't cut it)
If the answer boils down to "None", there is something that needs changing.
(I propose the simple use of common sense by those fielding complaints)
 
Let’s call the FAA hotline on the ASI in question
 
So I've thought about this on and off since I read it.

To be fair to the FAA guy, they did get a screenshot of Bryan saying he was doing something naughty. There was a smiley on the end of course but taken literally I can see how it might look like it at least warrants an investigation and it seems like since someone reported it they have to. Annoying as it is I don't see an issue there. To be fully fair to the FSDO here if they received a complaint like this and someone really was doing something illegal and it was written off... well... they'd be in hot water if it every came to light. I see why they have to look into it.

A lot of this depends on the individual doing the investigating. All of Bryan's silly videos are clearly marked as "a satire" and are very clearly just for humor's sake. If this guy talks to him, checks his logbooks, and chats with him for a while the situation should be very clear. The correct action for this investigator to take is to look into the matter then file, forget, and maybe apologize. I think or at least hope that this is the most likely outcome here. As much as I roll my eyes at some of the bureaucratic elements of the FAA, compared to other government agencies I've had the displeasure of dealing with their people are generally fairly helpful within what they are allowed or required to do and I think most of them, at least the ones I've talked to or read about, generally try to do the right thing.

This is of course Bryan's deal and whatever he wants to do is his choice. What I think we as a community should do is give this FSDO a chance to do the right thing here before we bring out the torches an pitchforks. However, that said, if they don't do the right thing... I will happily grab my torch and pitchfork on this. I'd hope organizations like the AOPA would get involved as well... Byran's actually probably got a decent following in the community with his videos so we could actually probably get some traction on it.

This is about more than just being able to make silly videos and jokes on an aviation group. These online communities like POA are incredibly valuable to all of us, I've learned a TON here that I'd have never have gotten from a CFI or anyone local I think. Being able to share our real world experiences and having a community that's fun to participate in lets us pick up so much more than what you learn from an instructor or FAA publication. Flying monkeys around and watching silly videos and making jokes is a part of having that community. The last thing we want is for people to be unwilling to share their experiences because some dweeb is waiting in the wings to screenshot it and send it to the local FSDO... not just for jokes but for the possible unintentional violations one might reveal in a story. Just from things I hear around the FBO, even heard from a CFI I know there are lot of people out there who are trying to be safe and compliant but don't correctly understand some rules. I see some folks right here in this thread express hesitation to joke or share certain things because of this and I know that's not an uncommon attitude. I don't blame them either, this incident is an example of why.

I don't think we should put up with it though. Generally law abiding pilots who are just trying to enjoy their hobby and share stories and humor with others in their community hadn't ought to have reason to worry. I think that's good enough reason to not hold back and I think if we have real reason to worry it means something is rotten and we need to at least try to address it.
 
cowman said:
So I've thought about this on and off since I read it.

To be fair to the FAA guy, they did get a screenshot of Bryan saying he was doing something naughty. There was a smiley on the end of course but taken literally I can see how it might look like it at least warrants an investigation and it seems like since someone reported it they have to. Annoying as it is I don't see an issue there. To be fully fair to the FSDO here if they received a complaint like this and someone really was doing something illegal and it was written off... well... they'd be in hot water if it every came to light. I see why they have to look into it.

A lot of this depends on the individual doing the investigating. All of Bryan's silly videos are clearly marked as "a satire" and are very clearly just for humor's sake. If this guy talks to him, checks his logbooks, and chats with him for a while the situation should be very clear. The correct action for this investigator to take is to look into the matter then file, forget, and maybe apologize. I think or at least hope that this is the most likely outcome here. As much as I roll my eyes at some of the bureaucratic elements of the FAA, compared to other government agencies I've had the displeasure of dealing with their people are generally fairly helpful within what they are allowed or required to do and I think most of them, at least the ones I've talked to or read about, generally try to do the right thing.

This is of course Bryan's deal and whatever he wants to do is his choice. What I think we as a community should do is give this FSDO a chance to do the right thing here before we bring out the torches an pitchforks. However, that said, if they don't do the right thing... I will happily grab my torch and pitchfork on this. I'd hope organizations like the AOPA would get involved as well... Byran's actually probably got a decent following in the community with his videos so we could actually probably get some traction on it.

This is about more than just being able to make silly videos and jokes on an aviation group. These online communities like POA are incredibly valuable to all of us, I've learned a TON here that I'd have never have gotten from a CFI or anyone local I think. Being able to share our real world experiences and having a community that's fun to participate in lets us pick up so much more than what you learn from an instructor or FAA publication. Flying monkeys around and watching silly videos and making jokes is a part of having that community. The last thing we want is for people to be unwilling to share their experiences because some dweeb is waiting in the wings to screenshot it and send it to the local FSDO... not just for jokes but for the possible unintentional violations one might reveal in a story. Just from things I hear around the FBO, even heard from a CFI I know there are lot of people out there who are trying to be safe and compliant but don't correctly understand some rules. I see some folks right here in this thread express hesitation to joke or share certain things because of this and I know that's not an uncommon attitude. I don't blame them either, this incident is an example of why.

I don't think we should put up with it though. Generally law abiding pilots who are just trying to enjoy their hobby and share stories and humor with others in their community hadn't ought to have reason to worry. I think that's good enough reason to not hold back and I think if we have real reason to worry it means something is rotten and we need to at least try to address it.
Click to expand...


TLDR.

bottom line is, some poor sap had nothing better to do than to 'tattle' on something that clearly was a harmless statement made in jest. now the faa dude has to waste time and money investigating absolutely nothing. and it'll be over and done with quickly. not much to overthink about here.....some poor sap is a loser and has nothing better to do with his time than force other people to waste their time. sad state of affairs, but 6er will have an easy time disputing this lame claim and will be laughing about it soon. to the loser who wasted everybody's time, I hope you get inoperable crabs.
 
SkyDog58 said:
You are the clueless sort aren’t you.
Click to expand...

I am.

SkyDog58 said:
But I guess it’s too complicated for you to grasp.
Click to expand...

Must be

SkyDog58 said:
Besides, it isn’t up to you to decide what anyone, let alone me, decides to discuss on this thread or any other thread.
Click to expand...

Yep

SkyDog58 said:
And if you don’t think the FAA already knows about the videos, you are even less bright than I thought.
Click to expand...
What they know and what they can introduce based on the limited information provided by the OP are two different things, entirely.

But then again, I’m less bright than you thought.

Can I go back to my corner and put my dunce dap on now?
 
Last edited:
I make no particular comment on the situation being discussed here but you may find this interesting. It involves an Airport and so is kind of aviation related. The event occurred in the UK.

My only comment is- "Jokes" published on the internet can go badly wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

It was the early days of twitter (2010?) and my understanding is that this man was using it as a private messaging service not apparently realising that it was actually public. He made a private joke to his girlfriend and he ended up with years in the courts before eventually overturning the initial criminal conviction that cost him his job and may have set him back years in the pursuit of a career as an Accountant.

He was also the subject of an anti-terror squad raid (armed), as I recall at his place of work. Police in the UK are not usually armed, but apparently an exception can be made in the case of jokes.

I am not going to quote the messages he sent here for obvious reasons but they are in the Wiki page.
 
Stingray Don said:
... in prison

:D
Click to expand...

Well, the FAA just had a guy arrested for 'acting as CFI without certificate' and the evidence was based on logbook entries.

We'll all visit Bryan in federal prison.
 
weilke said:
Well, the FAA just had a guy arrested for 'acting as CFI without certificate' and the evidence was based on logbook entries.

We'll all visit Bryan in federal prison.
Click to expand...


Writing down in your logbook an admission of guilt is akin to tying your own noose.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of the hotline?
(full-blown investigation as they are putting Bryan through doesn't cut it)
If the answer boils down to "None", there is something that needs changing.
(I propose the simple use of common sense by those fielding complaints)
Click to expand...
Offhand it doesn't sound like a "full blown investigation."
 
yup....it's all fun and games till someone ends up with a sharp stick in their eye. o_O
 
chartbundle said:
Um, yes they are, where on earth did you hear that? There used to be a restriction on Cadets training/soloing in High Performance aircraft, but I don't even see that restriction any more. Now, of course being CAP there are plenty of rules, but cadets not soloing is not one of them.
Click to expand...
You're correct...as of the Dec 2017 update to CAPR 70-1 of which I wasn't aware until you pointed this out....

"4.1.1. CAP Solo Pilot 4.1.1.1. To operate as a CAP Solo Pilot, the member must possess a current student pilot certificate, or a rated pilot certificate, with appropriate solo endorsements from a CAP Instructor Pilot for the make and model aircraft flown."

and

"6.1.2. CAP Cadets and currently qualified CAP Transport Mission Pilots and CAP Mission Pilots are authorized to use CAP airplanes for flight instruction toward any FAA certificate, rating, or endorsement."
 
Half Fast said:
Writing down in your logbook an admission of guilt is akin to tying your own noose.
Click to expand...

Well, that guy endorsed peoples logbooks after the FAA pulled his ticket for drowning a student. A bit of an extreme case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top