The FAA knows no limit to their pettiness

I don't know how you define "rapid curve", but more issues get dealt with at the free to $2K range in aviation than at the upper end. From letters to FSDO/regional managers to use of the Hotline reporting handling quite a few of them. As to comparing aircraft to "personal non-commercial motor vehicles" there is zero comparison. Aircraft fall under federal jurisdiction and motor vehicles under state jurisdiction. Now if you want to compare "personal non-commercial locomotives" or certain marine vessels then you might have a legit comparison but thats outside my skill set. Regardless, until one goes through the enforcement process, whether warranted or not, it is one topic that is difficult for the masses to fully understand. Curious, how many enforcement actions have you personally been through?

Nothing you mentioned was a real reason the process needs to be any different from any other traffic ticket system for minor infractions, in any other vehicle operation hobby.

All FAA has to do is decide to do it one day.

(They definitely don’t care about your “skill set” or whether it goes obsolete. No idea why you think they would...?)

Not holding my breath on anyone demanding simplified law enforcement for hobby flying. — Not when one of the largest aviation lobby organizations sells legal services/referrals and medical consultation for a large part of their revenue.

Those wouldn’t be sellable products in any other motor sports hobby.

The largest aviator lobby group gave up trying to change it — and decided to sell consulting services aimed at dealing with FAA instead.

Hmmmm.
 
I think to be technically accurate, "fired" isn't the right word. A DPE is not an FAA employee. A DPE is merely an individual to whom the FAA has granted limited authority to conduct pilot examinations.
True, as clarified previously.
 
I like to look at the facts.
In this case - what do we know?

He attended a seminar
He didn’t present, he didn’t speak; he was a guest
During the seminar someone talked about water skiing - skimming your tires above the water while flying
FAA said water skiing bad
He didn’t speak up
FAA fired him rescinded its delegation of authority to him
The person taking about waterskiing was also connected to the FAA - he has not been punished.

With these facts some see this to be odd, unfair, and uncalled for.

Does anyone else have additional facts?

Fixed it for you.
 
That is not true.
It is true in the scope of my context. Once the incorrect ruling is made, there is no practical process for a recreational pilot can take to reverse it. There is also no practical way to take action against the specific person that made the ruling, even if it was later determined to have been incorrect by the agency.
 
It is true in the scope of my context. Once the incorrect ruling is made, there is no practical process for a recreational pilot can take to reverse it. There is also no practical way to take action against the specific person that made the ruling, even if it was later determined to have been incorrect by the agency.

Have a reference for that?
 
It is true in the scope of my context. Once the incorrect ruling is made, there is no practical process for a recreational pilot can take to reverse it. There is also no practical way to take action against the specific person that made the ruling, even if it was later determined to have been incorrect by the agency.

I agree, its definitely an uphill battle, and very likely cost prohibitive for many to get relief from the order. You may well be correct that you can't go after the decision maker personally.
 
No, it's not reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. Even though the FAA does it frequently.

That's not what I asked. You made an assertion that simply isn't true and based upon your opinion only, and further what is your definition of "practical"?
 
No, it's not reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. Even though the FAA does it frequently.
I don't think he is asking you to prove a negative. There is a process to reverse an agency decision, which you are asserting is impractical. That's a positive assertion.
 
I agree, its definitely an uphill battle, and very likely cost prohibitive for many to get relief from the order. You may well be correct that you can't go after the decision maker personally.

Yes one can, but you must be able to prove that individual acted outside the scope of their employment.
 
I don't think he is asking you to prove a negative. There is a process to reverse an agency decision, which you are asserting is impractical. That's a positive assertion.
I can't show that there is not a process that does not exist.
 
Yes one can, but you must be able to prove that individual acted outside the scope of their employment.
Reference? This may sound tit-for-tat, but it's not meant that way. I don't believe one can sue a government agent for performing the duties of their job.
 
Yes one can, but you must be able to prove that individual acted outside the scope of their employment.
An incorrect ruling that they are permitted to make is not outside the scope of their employment.
 
Reference. This may sound tit-for-tat, but it's not meant that way. I don't believe one can sue a government agent for performing the duties of their job.

Again, if you can prove the employee is operating outside the scope of their employment, then you can take legal action against that person.
 
Nothing you mentioned was a real reason the process needs to be any different from any other traffic ticket system for minor infractions, in any other vehicle operation hobby. All FAA has to do is decide to do it one day.
I believe I did point out the difference, one falls under federal law and the other under state law. The FAA can only follow what the federal law provides, i.e., what congress passes. If you want that process change you need to talk to your congressman as the FAA doesn't make laws. A similar change is how Basic Med came to be, by congress.
 
Again, if you can prove the employee is operating outside the scope of their employment, then you can take legal action against that person.
If the employee is allowed to revoke my cert, and he revokes my cert because he doesn't like me and came up with some ridiculous reason, he is still operating inside the scope of his employment. My cert is revoked. It's up to me to somehow get it reversed. And I have no way to seek relief for the malicious act.
 
There is a process that is not practical. First, you lose your privilege. It's gone. There's no process to stop that from happening. Your privileges are gone immediately. There is no presumption of guilt that they have to overcome to remove those privileges. You must fight to get them back after you have been damaged.

The process you link to is not practical for a recreational pilot, and you will have lost your privilege until you get through that impractical process if you are stubborn enough to try it.
 
There are plenty of impractical processes. The simplest one is to fly anyway. Many have exercised that process.
 
If the employee is allowed to revoke my cert, and he revokes my cert because he doesn't like me and came up with some ridiculous reason, he is still operating inside the scope of his employment.

Wrong. Go read the 8900.1 on the procedures to revoke a certificate, and also read the 2150.3. There are no provisions for a certificate action based upon "he didn't like me". There has to be documented evidence and it has to be approved up through a chain to ensure it meets all legal requirements. An individual inspector does not and can never revoke a certificate on his own.

My cert is revoked. It's up to me to somehow get it reversed. And I have no way to seek relief for the malicious act.

Yes you can, there are procedures to appeal a ruling. And if it was done outside of the scope of employment or outside of agency orders, you have the basis for a legal course of action.
 
There is a process that is not practical. First, you lose your privilege. It's gone. There's no process to stop that from happening. Your privileges are gone immediately. There is no presumption of guilt that they have to overcome to remove those privileges. You must fight to get them back after you have been damaged.

The process you link to is not practical for a recreational pilot, and you will have lost your privilege until you get through that impractical process if you are stubborn enough to try it.
That it's not practical is the assertion you're being asked to prove. I haven't been through it, but there are members of this board and many other "recreational" pilots who have, personally and professionally. Also, I don't think your understanding of the process is completely correct. I don't think a single FAA employee can just yank your privileges.

This seems like a pretty reliable description: https://blog.globalair.com/post/201...rtificate-When-The-FAA-Suspends-Or-Revokes-It
 
Not as far as the discussion on this board is concerned.

I'm not sure why you say that, and I don't agree. If nothing else, there has been discussion of the due process requirements. That fact has a dramatic impact on the right of this former DPE to challenge the rescission. In particular, he probably would have to appeal directly the the 5th Circuit or the DC Circuit court of appeals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110. 49 U.S. Code § 46110 - Judicial review | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
 
Last edited:
Yes one can, but you must be able to prove that individual acted outside the scope of their employment.

That is true, but that's a change in the factual scenario to which I was responding. Salty's predicate was taking action against the person who "made the ruling." That's very likely going to be action within the scope of employment by definition, and there would be governmental officer immunity.
 
That is true, but that's a change in the factual scenario to which I was responding. Salty's predicate was taking action against the person who "made the ruling." That's going to be action within the scope of employment by definition, and there would be governmental officer immunity.

Agreed. But if it could be shown, and proved that the ruling was made outside of the regulations and orders, then that immunity could be challenged.

Salty seems to be under the impression that a singular employee, say an individual inspector can revoke a certificate on his own without oversight and without following a fairly involved process. And certificate revocations, and even surrenders, must eventually make it to the agency attorneys who have the final authority to proceed or dismiss.

BTW, the entire process is detailed in the Orders 8900.1 and 2150.3.
 
Last edited:
you will have lost your privilege until you get through that impractical process if you are stubborn enough to try it.
Define impractical. I've spent a many hours assisting in those "impractical" processes which usually ended in no loss of privileges or limited actions. And in my experience, none of the enforcement actions were carried out by a single person. Zero. So your example of a single ASI revoking your certificate and leaving you on the side of the road is no where near what actually happens. Do you have a more specific example?
 
Agreed. But if it could be shown, and proved that the ruling was made outside of the regulations and orders, then that immunity could be challenged.

Salty seems to be under the impression that a singular employee, say an individual inspector can revoke a certificate on his own without oversight and without following a fairly involved process. And certificate revocations, and even surrenders, must eventually make it to the agency attorneys who have the final authority to proceed or dismiss.

BTW, the entire process is detailed in the Orders 8900.1 and 2150.3.

Understood. However, and this is admittedly a bit of a non-sequitur to your point, I am not sure that that process would apply to the revocation of a DPE's authority as in the scenario kicking off this thread. There is a host of case law that has held that such a revocation is only appealable under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, which is a direct appeal to the appropriate circuit court of appeals.
 
I don't think he is asking you to prove a negative. There is a process to reverse an agency decision, which you are asserting is impractical. That's a positive assertion.
Prove unicorns don't exist. Assuming you believe that they don't.

I don't believe a practical way exists, I cannot prove to you that it doesn't any more than I can prove unicorns don't exist.
 
Prove unicorns don't exist. Assuming you believe that they don't.

I don't believe a practical way exists, I cannot prove to you that it doesn't any more than I can prove unicorns don't exist.

That’s because practicality is an individual decision.

He’s always going to say a multi-thousand dollar process is practical. He doesn’t have to pay it. LOL. And anyone inside the non-practical or inefficient solution, their paycheck comes from it.

Anyone else living in the real world is going to compare it to other processes for motor vehicles and say it’s not.

When a list of known and published fines and penalties is how everybody else does it for initial, non-harmful, legal infractions when operating other traveling machines as a hobbyist and not a professional.. the aviation system of multiple people involved is archaic.

This is stuff you get a well defined ticket and penalties for initial minor infractions or mistakes, and you then click to pay online on your smartphone and go about your day — in every other motor sport hobby world. Only if you’re too extra naughty do you ever go to court and even then, you usually don’t need a freaking legal team from AOPA Legal Services to figure it out.

FAA will never EVER strive to be that “practical”. Not in a million billion years.
 
I believe I did point out the difference, one falls under federal law and the other under state law. The FAA can only follow what the federal law provides, i.e., what congress passes. If you want that process change you need to talk to your congressman as the FAA doesn't make laws. A similar change is how Basic Med came to be, by congress.

And I stated that federal law doesn’t mandate HOW FAA runs their enforcement programs AFAIK. They have significant leeway to do it however they like.

Never seen a law that says their prosecutors can’t use pre-arranged plea deals like everybody else. Have you?

BasicMed came about because they WOULDN’T change behavior to be reasonable to hobbyists, not because they COULDN’T under their original Congressional mandate.

Or PBOR. The FAA lawyers didn’t HAVE to hide information from the accused. They WANTED to.

Same thing with enforcement. Easy to change procedure and treat hobbyists like hobbyists if they WANTED to. Congress has put no limitations on structured published plea deals.
 
And I stated that federal law doesn’t mandate HOW FAA runs their enforcement programs AFAIK. They have significant leeway to do it however they like.
While this is at the limits of my skills and experience, it’s my understanding USC law sets the legal basis for the FAA enforcement program. Then administrative regulations (Part 13) are written to enforce those USC laws. And from there national policies (Order 2150.3) are written to further define/enforce the regulation. If you look to FAR Part 13 it provides the links from the USC law to the regulation which is the basis for the FAA enforcement procedure/policy. So perhaps you can give a “leeway” example as the enforcement process is pretty much defined regardless if a hobbyist or 121 operator in my experience.

Never seen a law that says their prosecutors can’t use pre-arranged plea deals like everybody else. Have you?
Easy to change procedure and treat hobbyists like hobbyists if they WANTED to. Congress has put no limitations on structured published plea deals.
As I mentioned before I don’t know where you are getting your information but you may want to look at other references. As to “pre-arranged plea deals” I have no clue what you are trying to state. Perhaps you can provide an example of this as well? Having assisted in both civil and administrative proceedings what you are stating would fit better in a civil action rather than in your typical FAA administrative action.
 
TWhen a list of known and published fines and penalties is how everybody else does it for initial, non-harmful, legal infractions when operating other traveling machines as a hobbyist and not a professional.. the aviation system of multiple people involved is archaic.

There is an element missed in this. The DPE is essentially the highest level that can be achieved and we presume the one held to the highest standards. Is cub skiing a risk that a DPE should tolerate in any way, let alone answer with a joke? The guy giving the seminar delivered that view and the DPE, who was on the seminar, did not jump in and make it absolutely clear that it was not acceptable. Yes, the DPE delivered feedback on it nearly immediately when it happened years ago, but in the webinar, he did not speak up and his silence gave the impression that it was OK as long as you weren't risking your own airplane.

Rolling back to the traffic court example earlier, this same element was missed there. If you have a CDL, you will NOT walk out of court with a maximum $250 fine, you are likely to lose your license for even the smallest infraction. Professionals are held to a higher standard and if that standard slips an ounce, you have a problem. DPEs are held to a higher level than commercial pilots, higher than instructors and probably higher than ATPs.

I suspect there was more to this.
 
While this is at the limits of my skills and experience, it’s my understanding USC law sets the legal basis for the FAA enforcement program. Then administrative regulations (Part 13) are written to enforce those USC laws. And from there national policies (Order 2150.3) are written to further define/enforce the regulation. If you look to FAR Part 13 it provides the links from the USC law to the regulation which is the basis for the FAA enforcement procedure/policy. So perhaps you can give a “leeway” example as the enforcement process is pretty much defined regardless if a hobbyist or 121 operator in my experience.



As I mentioned before I don’t know where you are getting your information but you may want to look at other references. As to “pre-arranged plea deals” I have no clue what you are trying to state. Perhaps you can provide an example of this as well? Having assisted in both civil and administrative proceedings what you are stating would fit better in a civil action rather than in your typical FAA administrative action.
Some of the enforcement is statutory - e.g. the law requires it - and some is established by the agency to enforce rules they set.

The enforcement is, as you note, set by administrative regulation, which means it may be changed by the agency (unless a particular enforcement process is established in the overarching law).

The law, for example, may require some form of pilot license.... but it's left to the agency to set the standards for said license. The enforcement process is, therefore, different for someone who has no license at all vs one that's conducting a commercial operation on a private license. Drones are another area where there's a difference in licensing and enforcement.

Radio licenses are another area where there is discretion: the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires that stations be licensed (including mobile/airborne stations); the FCC has reached an agreement with the FAA that for domestic use the aircraft registration can act as a radio license too, but the agency is limited by international treaties so a separate radio license is required for international travel by a plane. As such, the FCC generally won't enforce the radio licensing requirement in an aircraft (but they could for international travel), but they WILL go after a pilot that interferes with other users or makes false calls.

The specifics of enforcement can be changed by the agency (as long as they act in accordance with the APA) unless the penalty is specified in the law. Field people also generally have discretion to issue a warning instead of full-blown enforcement action (to the FAA, that would be a "condition notice" vs certificate action for flying a defective aircraft).

And all that is why the agencies are chock full of lawyers.
 
There is an element missed in this. The DPE is essentially the highest level that can be achieved and we presume the one held to the highest standards.

I already stated this but since it was clearly missed, so I’ll state it again.

My discussion about the process was triggered by one person stating over and over that there’s a process for everything and FAA made big changes.

It was about that process change not being desired at all by FAA ever, and how the process relates to hobbyists.

A DPE is a pseudo-employee of FAA and I don’t care in the slightest if FAA “hires” or “fires” pseudo-employees.

The DPE story can’t and won’t ever have all the details, so that’s a second reason not to bother spending more than two seconds reading it.

So I’m not sure what “element” you think I missed since I wasn’t discussing the DPE and his situation at all. I stipulated that in the first response.
 
While this is at the limits of my skills and experience, it’s my understanding USC law sets the legal basis for the FAA enforcement program. Then administrative regulations (Part 13) are written to enforce those USC laws. And from there national policies (Order 2150.3) are written to further define/enforce the regulation. If you look to FAR Part 13 it provides the links from the USC law to the regulation which is the basis for the FAA enforcement procedure/policy. So perhaps you can give a “leeway” example as the enforcement process is pretty much defined regardless if a hobbyist or 121 operator in my experience.



As I mentioned before I don’t know where you are getting your information but you may want to look at other references. As to “pre-arranged plea deals” I have no clue what you are trying to state. Perhaps you can provide an example of this as well? Having assisted in both civil and administrative proceedings what you are stating would fit better in a civil action rather than in your typical FAA administrative action.

Below the USC level in your example, those policies are written BY FAA. If there’s no instruction of how a procedure must be accomplished at the USC level, FAA can do as they please.

The plea deal is in reference to what you see on the back of every traffic ticket. That’s a plea deal. You accept a guilty plea for the burreaucracy’s expedience in “enforcing the law”. In return they limit their enforcement actions to specific things.

Be really easy for FAA to make such a list of pre-arranged deals for minor infractions, and keep the vast majority of cases (especially at the hobbyist level) out of needing anything more than a “parking ticket” and a check returned.

The rest is between the pilot and their insurance company.

Just like other small motor vehicles that are not used for commercial service.

Was simply a quite workable example of that major difference between those and light non-commercial aircraft.

“Dear pilot. We allege that you did X naughty thing. If you agree you did, we agree there will be no further action taken, a. note will be placed in your record that you’ve lost three of ten brownie points that we report to your insurer, we will expunge those in X years permanently, and you admit to guilt. We put that in your file with our investigation notes so far and we all move on. The standard fine is listed on the enclosed ticket.

Otherwise come on over to the FSDO and we’ll start the old fashioned legal process unlike any you’ve ever encountered. Give AOPA Legal Services a ring. You’re gonna need them. Like before we implemented this new thing.”

It’s literally a form with checkboxes. All the no-harm naughty FARs listed next to a box. Traffic cop.

Check the box, print the form letter, and mail. Investigator and prosecutor removed from the entire process other than as a rubber stamp.

No risk of unequal enforcement. No need for a lawyer. No concerns about what the enforcement action will be. No need to even kissy face and smile at anyone.

If you made a basic mistake and fess up to it, as a hobbyist, what will happen is written in stone nationwide. Not the “process” written in stone with an unknowable outcome. The actual end result and consequences.

“You did X. Your fine is $Y. And you get zero/one/two/whatever infractions inside a Z year period or we don’t offer this anymore. Just like down at the traffic ticket building.”
 
“You did X. Your fine is $Y. And you get zero/one/two/whatever infractions inside a Z year period or we don’t offer this anymore. Just like down at the traffic ticket building.”
As usual you rant but do not read. If you where to actually read the existing FAA enforcement guidance you would find there already is, and has been, a published list of infractions and their associated penalties, both time and money based. X, Y, and Z. All laid out by law and regulation which are public record. No agenda or secrets. And since it's obvious you have zero or very limited personal experience in actual FAA enforcement actions, it may shock you to know that a lot, if not the majority of those violations are handled quietly, without attorneys, or other issues... just like your motor vehicle examples. It is what it is. But if you choose not to educate yourself on those established facts or provide alternate specific examples to your points, well, as I've told you in the past, I can't help you any further.

And just to keep things on topic, when it comes to FAA designees as with the DPE from the OP, they do not enjoy the same protections as regular aviators as they fall under a completely different set of laws and rules. ;)

As to your continued use of the term "hobbyist", how do you define that that term in an aviation sense? To me, at best, an aviation hobbyist may include people who fly E/ABs, Part 103 or small drones. Then again I don't of know too many hobbies that require a federal certificate and a medical to enjoy.:rolleyes:
 
BTW, the entire process is detailed in the Orders 8900.1 and 2150.3.

for DPEs, 8000.85.

page 1-26, 5 reasons a DPE can be terminated for cause.


1. For Cause. Examples of “for cause” reasons include:
(a) Performance deficiencies found during oversight activities or identified by other sources;
(b) Lack of integrity (for example, making false statements, misrepresenting information, failing to disclose pertinent information, etc.);
(c) Misconduct (for example, purposefully not following prescribed procedures for gain, etc.);
(d) Inability to work constructively with the FAA or public (for example, failure to return phone calls, follow guidance, exhibit a cooperative attitude, etc.); and
(e) Improper representation of the FAA (for example, using designee number for inappropriate purposes, etc.).

Nate, I was not really replying to you, I was using your message to redirect back to the original topic.
 
Back
Top