The FAA knows no limit to their pettiness

Llk said:
The issue is the lack of transparency. A bureaucratic agency pulls a designation (their entitlement), but does so in a manner that is either cryptic, petty or unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...

Cryptic? Everything about the designee process is in the law and is a public record.

49 USC , subtitle VII, Part A, subpart iii, chapter 447, 44702

(d) Delegation.—
(1) Subject to regulations, supervision, and review the Administrator may prescribe, the Administrator may delegate to a qualified private person, or to an employee under the supervision of that person, a matter related to—
(A)
the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate under this chapter; and

(B)
issuing the certificate.

(2)
The Administrator may rescind a delegation under this subsection at any time for any reason the Administrator considers appropriate.

More information is contained in FAA Order 8000.95, Chapter 9. https://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_...60045398d/$FILE/8000.95_CHG5_Incorporated.pdf
 
Llk said:
...In this case. I would expect much better from that FSDO given its location...
Click to expand...
Why is that? Organizational culture doesn’t have to be impacted by diverse operating locations.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Cryptic? Everything about the designee process is in the law and is a public record.

49 USC , subtitle VII, Part A, subpart iii, chapter 447, 44702

(d) Delegation.—
(1) Subject to regulations, supervision, and review the Administrator may prescribe, the Administrator may delegate to a qualified private person, or to an employee under the supervision of that person, a matter related to—
(A)
the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate under this chapter; and

(B)
issuing the certificate.

(2)
The Administrator may rescind a delegation under this subsection at any time for any reason the Administrator considers appropriate.

More information is contained in FAA Order 8000.95, Chapter 9. https://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_...60045398d/$FILE/8000.95_CHG5_Incorporated.pdf
Click to expand...

Yeah, considering how that can negatively affect other people, beyond the impact on the examiner as an individual, it would be highly desirable for their to be a more transparent (to the general public) process and a means of appeal in the case of that being abused, which would be my concern in cases beyond Ken’s...
 
At any time, for any reason.

What if the local FSDO manager decides the DPE is gay and doesn’t like it?

What if...the FSDO decides that the DPE has politics they don’t agree with?

Perhaps the local manager doesn’t like that a DPE was prior military?

Some of you may be entirely ok with the notion of “at any time for any reason” - to me, that sounds like you could fly a 737Max with the subjectivity of the sentence, all without having to disclose a specific set of facts resulting in the removal of the designation.

On geographies, it has nothing to do with personal opinion. If all districts operated similarly, people would not shop around for FSDO’s to conduct their business. Mileage always varies. The LA FSDO staff is markedly different than say, the Riverside FSDO, which itself is worlds away from Oakland or Atl.

After 9:11, customer service changed quite a bit across the board, but to say there’s no variance in FSDO customer service or fail rates for that matter would be... not supported by personal experiences and many threads even on this board.
 
Llk said:
At any time, for any reason.

What if the local FSDO manager decides the DPE is gay and doesn’t like it?

What if...the FSDO decides that the DPE has politics they don’t agree with?

Perhaps the local manager doesn’t like that a DPE was prior military?
Click to expand...

Under the examples posted above the DPE would have recourse and be able to appeal the dismissal, and win (most likely) based upon evidence. Had you read what I posted you would have seen there is an appeal process.
 
Llk said:
At any time, for any reason.

What if the local FSDO manager decides the DPE is gay and doesn’t like it?

What if...the FSDO decides that the DPE has politics they don’t agree with?

Perhaps the local manager doesn’t like that a DPE was prior military?

Some of you may be entirely ok with the notion of “at any time for any reason” - to me, that sounds like you could fly a 737Max with the subjectivity of the sentence, all without having to disclose a specific set of facts resulting in the removal of the designation.
Click to expand...

What if?

49 U.S.C. § 44702(d)(2) states that the FAA can rescind the grant of authority at any time for any reason the Administrator deems appropriate. Congress has granted that right to the FAA administrator. There is an administrative appeal under Order 8000.95 CHG 5 (faa.gov) So, if the administrator lets such action stand on appeal within the FAA, then the question would be if the courts would to find that the executive branch is prohibited from doing so by the constitution. The DPE can challenge the revocation to the appropriate circuit court of appeals. The other check is to vote out the President or get congress to change the administrator's authority if you don't like it.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
What if?

49 U.S.C. § 44702(d)(2) states that the FAA can rescind the grant of authority at any time for any reason the Administrator deems appropriate. Congress has granted that right to the FAA administrator. So, if the administrator lets such action stand, then the question would be if the courts would to find that the executive branch is prohibited from doing so by the constitution. The DPE can challenge the revocation to the appropriate circuit court of appeals. The other check is to vote out the President if you don't like it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Sounds good on the surface. The problem is an individual with low ethical standards is more than willing to lie and justify their actions. When they don’t think that will work they can always double down and start certificate action to leverage the individual. I have seen this exact scenario play out. Fighting these type of situations is very expensive both in direct costs and lost revenue while the ability to earn income has been taken away by the unethical person representing the government. I’m not saying it happens every day but it definitely happens.
 
Llk said:
At any time, for any reason.

What if the local FSDO manager decides the DPE is gay and doesn’t like it?

What if...the FSDO decides that the DPE has politics they don’t agree with?

Perhaps the local manager doesn’t like that a DPE was prior military?

Some of you may be entirely ok with the notion of “at any time for any reason” - to me, that sounds like you could fly a 737Max with the subjectivity of the sentence, all without having to disclose a specific set of facts resulting in the removal of the designation.

On geographies, it has nothing to do with personal opinion. If all districts operated similarly, people would not shop around for FSDO’s to conduct their business. Mileage always varies. The LA FSDO staff is markedly different than say, the Riverside FSDO, which itself is worlds away from Oakland or Atl.

After 9:11, customer service changed quite a bit across the board, but to say there’s no variance in FSDO customer service or fail rates for that matter would be... not supported by personal experiences and many threads even on this board.
Click to expand...
Boys and girls, this is what it looks like when someone intentionally misreads or misquotes something to make an argument.
 
Llk said:
After 9:11, customer service changed quite a bit across the board,
Click to expand...
To me, access and interaction with FSDO ASIs changed after the OK City bombing in the 90s. No longer was there "easy" access to the FSDO inner workings and that loss of face to face interaction deteriorated the working relation/customer service. It also caused a number of older ASIs to retire. Regardless, when it comes to designees they are told from the get go that the designee is only a privilege that can be rescinded for cause or no cause. They told me the same when I got selected for the NEB pool. So whether you think it's fair or not every designee knew that to include the subject DPE before they even started.
 
Bell206 said:
To me, access and interaction with FSDO ASIs changed after the OK City bombing in the 90s. No longer was there "easy" access to the FSDO inner workings and that loss of face to face interaction deteriorated the working relation/customer service. It also caused a number of older ASIs to retire. Regardless, when it comes to designees they are told from the get go that the designee is only a privilege that can be rescinded for cause or no cause. They told me the same when I got selected for the NEB pool. So whether you think it's fair or not every designee knew that to include the subject DPE before they even started.
Click to expand...
9-11 was the last nail. Covid set the coffin on fire.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah. Sounds good on the surface. The problem is an individual with low ethical standards is more than willing to lie and justify their actions. When they don’t think that will work they can always double down and start certificate action to leverage the individual. I have seen this exact scenario play out. Fighting these type of situations is very expensive both in direct costs and lost revenue while the ability to earn income has been taken away by the unethical person representing the government. I’m not saying it happens every day but it definitely happens.
Click to expand...


Removal of a designation (DPE) is not a certificate action.
 
Almost all government contracts - even to the big guys - have a clause that allows the government to cancel 'for the convenience of the government'. Seems to me that the DPE authorization is no different.
 
Llk said:
On geographies, it has nothing to do with personal opinion. If all districts operated similarly, people would not shop around for FSDO’s to conduct their business. Mileage always varies. The LA FSDO staff is markedly different than say, the Riverside FSDO, which itself is worlds away from Oakland or Atl.

.... but to say there’s no variance in FSDO customer service or fail rates for that matter would be... not supported by personal experiences and many threads even on this board.
Click to expand...

You misread my rhetorical question. My reply is in agreement to the reality of differing outcomes by virtue of zip codes you highlight. What I was taking exception to with my reply was your specific expectation the San Antonio FSDO would somehow "be better" by virtue of its location. That's what I "lulz" at.
 
PPC1052 said:
What if?

49 U.S.C. § 44702(d)(2) states that the FAA can rescind the grant of authority at any time for any reason the Administrator deems appropriate. Congress has granted that right to the FAA administrator. There is an administrative appeal under Order 8000.95 CHG 5 (faa.gov) So, if the administrator lets such action stand on appeal within the FAA, then the question would be if the courts would to find that the executive branch is prohibited from doing so by the constitution. The DPE can challenge the revocation to the appropriate circuit court of appeals. The other check is to vote out the President or get congress to change the administrator's authority if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

My post was intended to expound the discussion. Regulatory language is often far too broad for my taste, particularly when often the regulations are subject to the whims of whatever petty tyrant is in charge. My argument is often these petty fiefdoms focus on the wrong crap while giving themselves undeserved importance. Nowhere is this more evident than the 737 max program which lays the faa culture bare and its problems as systemic.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate...-wake-of-boeing-737-max-tragedies-11608470513

I recall having a discussion with a similar petty tyrant in another federal agency. This attorney refused to provide a statute for the alleged violation that would happen in an event. After contorting himself into an uncomfortable pretzel, he finally blurted out the soon to be released statute he was referring to, in an agency that oversees several vices, for which there was no literal equivalence to the question at hand, and chuckled about the subsequent cost of litigation to be proven wrong. This was how a transportation bill (being composed and would of course ultimately pass) would affect cigarettes and ultimately apply to gun manufacture. The agency still clutches to that regulation only because no one has wasted the money to challenge it, and by then, these petty tyrants will have long retired.

A DPE being forced to take this to a circuit court, let alone the suggestion that we need a new president to reduce the authority of an administrator, merely proves the fact that many aspects of our government have become far too powerful and burdensome save for helicopter parents who’d send their children out in sumo suits with motorcycle helmets on play dates. The efficacy of the FAA in many regards has been transparent for many of us as we see them talk themselves in circles around UAVs or many other topics- king making of DpEs is only one. Now if said DPE had frequently taken his manager out and fawned at the marvelousness of said manager’s existence, he probably wouldn’t be in this predicament.
 
Llk said:
A DPE being forced to take this to a circuit court, let alone the suggestion that we need a new president to reduce the authority of an administrator, merely proves the fact that many aspects of our government have become far too powerful and burdensome save for helicopter parents who’d send their children out in sumo suits with motorcycle helmets on play dates.
Click to expand...

Meh. What else would you want? There is an administrative appeal within the FAA, and if you don't like the result, a judicial appeal, and a finally political check at the ballot box. Do you want to just give the power to a single person to make rulings? If so, what do you do when you don't like the result? The underlying problem is that at the heart of each decision, there is a human responsible. Humans are fallible. You are always going to have bad decisions, either made for the wrong reason or just out of spite or pettiness. When you have large organizations like the FAA, you maximize the chances of that occurring and increase the difficulty of correcting it when it happens. You want to add personal liability against the decision makers? That's fraught with its own set of injustices that would be worse than the problem you are trying to fix. And, I would also add that most DPEs wouldn't want to live under such a system themselves. Any time they deny issuing a certificate, they could get sued by the disappointed applicant. I say that with a little bit of personal experience having personally defended claims by disappointed airmen.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...
The government has recently proved it is not above just making things up.
 
What I always find interesting in these type FAA discussions is the apparent lack of personal experience with the FAA administrative processes. And only using the Bob Hoover, or of late, the MAX rally call to make the point on how “bad” the FAA is only proves that lack of insight. Is the system perfect? No, but what system is?

In this DPE’s case, and knowing how the process works, I’d like to know, if he was so wrongly screwed, why he didn’t submit his designation removal to the DMS appeals process? That’s what it is there for. But then again that is based on my personal experience of the process.

Regardless, the funnier part of these “bad” FAA threads is that no matter how screwed up those may think the FAA is, the one CAA system the rest of the aviation world, i.e., outside the US, wants has always been the US FAA regulatory system. And where they can people will even pay extra to fly an N reg aircraft just have that system. Believe it or not.
 
Somewhat of a tangent, somewhat related to a post by Bell206.

We hear about it when things go south. I would guess 99% of the time things mostly work well and we never hear about it. When was the last post about "FAA sent me my new Pilots license on time". Not news worthy. Given the size of the United State's air system, given that it's part of the government by necessity, in some ways its amazing it works as well as it does.

This doesn't excuse transgressions, or the lack of progress in some areas.

When I hear of something like this, I try to see if it is rampant / representative of ALL of the group (in this case the FAA), or if it is something that happens infrequently in a certain group. That allows me to more accurately describe the group as a whole.

I'm not saying the FAA is all great, I'm not saying it's all bad. As I'm still a relatively a new pilot (1 year), I'm not seeing that the FAA is worthy of being a part of Orwell's novel.
 
LesGawlik said:
Why was that level of abuse permitted in the first place? Where is the oversight? Why are we always trying to remedy horrendous abuses by government?
Click to expand...
Governments are composed of people, and people aren't perfect.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Cryptic? Everything about the designee process is in the law and is a public record.

49 USC , subtitle VII, Part A, subpart iii, chapter 447, 44702

(d) Delegation.—
(1) Subject to regulations, supervision, and review the Administrator may prescribe, the Administrator may delegate to a qualified private person, or to an employee under the supervision of that person, a matter related to—
(A)
the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate under this chapter; and

(B)
issuing the certificate.

(2)
The Administrator may rescind a delegation under this subsection at any time for any reason the Administrator considers appropriate.

More information is contained in FAA Order 8000.95, Chapter 9. https://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_...60045398d/$FILE/8000.95_CHG5_Incorporated.pdf
Click to expand...

"The Administrator may rescind a delegation under this subsection at any time for any reason the Administrator considers appropriate."

Wow. So much for "a government of laws, and not of men." With language like that in the statute, it's a wonder that the FAA deals with people fairly as often as it it does.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Boys and girls, this is what it looks like when someone intentionally misreads or misquotes something to make an argument.
Click to expand...
But it is also what happens in the real world all the time. Power corrupts and often brings forward an individual’s prejudices. Plenty of people have been inappropriately fired for being non-binary with the power in party lying about their real intentions.

It would behoove the FAA to be transparent about their DPE process. When I was getting my PPL, it was just after the ruling that DPEs could travel to another FSDO region to give a check ride. My DPE would not come to my home field for the sole reason that she thought other DPEs and FSDO officials would get mad at her for stepping on their toes. Such a petty reason, and I was going to use her for the ride regardless, but it was because some officials and their DPE friends would get hurt feelings that I had to travel. I live close to the FSDO regional border, so the difference was a matter of miles, but it was the realization that all that matters was who was Buddy Buddy with the FSDO.

Also, another tip is to take checkrides in 2 seat aircraft and there is no chance of the FSDO inspector hopping along for the ride.
 
Palmpilot said:
"The Administrator may rescind a delegation under this subsection at any time for any reason the Administrator considers appropriate."

Wow. So much for "a government of laws, and not of men." With language like that in the statute, it's a wonder that the FAA deals with people fairly as often as it it does.
Click to expand...

Do you understand administrative law and designations?

How would making designations harder to remove improve the quality of the designees?

Plus, you’re omitting the hundreds upon hundreds of designees that do a good job, follow the guidance of the administrator and have little to no problems. Please explain how changing the system to allow the problematic ones an avenue not to be removed benefits anyone?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
But it is also what happens in the real world all the time. Power corrupts and often brings forward an individual’s prejudices. Plenty of people have been inappropriately fired for being non-binary with the power in party lying about their real intentions.

It would behoove the FAA to be transparent about their DPE process. When I was getting my PPL, it was just after the ruling that DPEs could travel to another FSDO region to give a check ride. My DPE would not come to my home field for the sole reason that she thought other DPEs and FSDO officials would get mad at her for stepping on their toes. Such a petty reason, and I was going to use her for the ride regardless, but it was because some officials and their DPE friends would get hurt feelings that I had to travel. I live close to the FSDO regional border, so the difference was a matter of miles, but it was the realization that all that matters was who was Buddy Buddy with the FSDO.

Also, another tip is to take checkrides in 2 seat aircraft and there is no chance of the FSDO inspector hopping along for the ride.
Click to expand...

How are you going to prevent an Inspector from sitting through the oral and post flight?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
But it is also what happens in the real world all the time. Power corrupts and often brings forward an individual’s prejudices. Plenty of people have been inappropriately fired for being non-binary with the power in party lying about their real intentions.
Click to expand...
But as was pointed out previously, there is a process for when an individual wrongly usurps the power of “the Administrator” when “the Administrator” is conveniently left out of the process.

Also, another tip is to take checkrides in 2 seat aircraft and there is no chance of the FSDO inspector hopping along for the ride.
Click to expand...
How quickly we go from “power corrupts” to “I don’t want checks and balances on MY checkride!” ;)
 
Doc Holliday said:
Do you understand administrative law and designations?

How would making designations harder to remove improve the quality of the designees?

Plus, you’re omitting the hundreds upon hundreds of designees that do a good job, follow the guidance of the administrator and have little to no problems. Please explain how changing the system to allow the problematic ones an avenue not to be removed benefits anyone?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I was trying to convey that the FAA usually deals fairly with people, in spite of the blank check in the statutory language.
 
Palmpilot said:
Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I was trying to convey that the FAA usually deals fairly with people, in spite of the blank check in the statutory language.
Click to expand...
I would say that “acceptable to the Administrator” makes it not a blank check.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Do you understand administrative law and designations?

How would making designations harder to remove improve the quality of the designees?

Plus, you’re omitting the hundreds upon hundreds of designees that do a good job, follow the guidance of the administrator and have little to no problems. Please explain how changing the system to allow the problematic ones an avenue not to be removed benefits anyone?
Click to expand...

DPE designation shouldn’t be that complicated, and the ethics of dealing with the FAA shouldn’t require a few decades post LL. M or some other manner of advanced legal practice. An examiner either has the skills and knowledge or they don’t, and it should be their job to test that applicant. When the FAA begins to meddle with a designee’s sense of humor, or fails to speak up during a video chat, or other activities when a DPE was not administering an exam, that’s pig excrement.

Either a person can perform the work of a designated examiner based on proper progressive examination and vouching or they can’t. The standards, as many things in our pilot world that exist, should be clearly delineated. Language as loose and totalitarian as the stated regulation provided ample room for abuse, and vast places for bacteria, vermin and other bugs to hide without accounting for passions, preferences, moral turpitude or petty grievances.

The beginning of this thread was about pettiness from a FSDO office. Many have quoted the amplitude and breadth of the statute, many have even defended it by dismissing the fallible nature of humans. The cure for these sorts if issues is transparency which the statute clearly doesn’t allow for, permitting lesser spineless people to hide behind pedantic actions without recourse for the afflicted. While the DPE in question has spoken, the responsible FAA party has not-and that doesn’t go unnoticed.

In law enforcement, we had millions of encounters a year, but it’s the exceptions that the public remembers. And that’s perfectly fine as is. The same should be the case for bureaucrats and regulators. Law is a little different - we have hearings and depositions and trials. The process should be more open.

Transparency and accountability is something that the process clearly lacks.
 
Llk said:
DPE designation shouldn’t be that complicated, and the ethics of dealing with the FAA shouldn’t require a few decades post LL. M or some other manner of advanced legal practice.
Click to expand...
That's just it, it's not complicated or requires advanced legal skills. I've personally done the designee process and interacted with the FAA on a regular basis for years... as do 1000s of others with zero issues. So it's hard to follow your thought train that it is the opposite based on my personal experience. So for discussion's sake, what is your personal experience in dealing with the FAA?
Llk said:
The cure for these sorts if issues is transparency which the statute clearly doesn’t allow for,
Click to expand...
Then if the statute that authorizes the FAA to designate private citizens with certain governmental powers is the issue perhaps contact your local congressman as they're the ones who made/passed the designate law to begin with.;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
I would say that “acceptable to the Administrator” makes it not a blank check.
Click to expand...

"Acceptable to the Administrator" would not prevent the Administrator from, for example, rescinding a delegation because he didn't like the person's looks, or had a personal grudge against them. One would have to look to other laws, or to the Constitution, for relief from that kind of thing.
 
Palmpilot said:
"Acceptable to the Administrator" would not prevent the Administrator from, for example, rescinding a delegation because he didn't like the person's looks, or had a personal grudge against them. One would have to look to other laws, or to the Constitution, for relief from that kind of thing.
Click to expand...
If you’ve had the opportunity to offend the Administrator, you’re in a whole different class than most of us.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you’ve had the opportunity to offend the Administrator, you’re in a whole different class than most of us.
Click to expand...

I'm on the opposite coast from the Administrator, but I've noticed that the Internet makes it possible to offend people from great distances!

Maybe the Administrator doesn't like my sense of humor. ;)

This DPE's claims about the FAA's reason for their action, IF true, would be considered by some to indicate an abuse of power. Of course, I recognize that we're only getting one person's side of the story.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm on the opposite coast from the Administrator, but I've noticed that the Internet makes it possible to offend people from great distances!

Maybe the Administrator doesn't like my sense of humor. ;)

This DPE's claims about the FAA's reason for their action, IF true, would be considered by some to indicate an abuse of power. Of course, I recognize that we're only getting one person's side of the story.
Click to expand...
I was on a first-name basis with most of my previous FSDO guys for 20 years (and in fact almost taxied into another airplane with the current FSDO manager on board back when she was a flight instructor), and currently with the guys who approve me as an examiner. My name made it to Oklahoma City with regard to getting my initial Flight Instructor certificate because the Region wasn’t capable of handling it. And I doubt the Administrator has any clue who I am.

The revoked certificate that I’m most familiar with, primarily because I worked with a couple of people who were actually there when it was going on, has been described as “a witch hunt. Not that he didn’t deserve everything he got.”

So yes, the FAA can appear somewhat petty in the specifics of the complaint, but as you say, we’re only getting one side of the story. And as has been pointed out, there is apparently significantly more to this than we know about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top