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

kyleb said:
They have a process (I'm sure). Someone makes a report, and an FAA guy/gal is tasked to check on the report. S/he doesn't have a choice. And that's how it should be. BUT, the FAA guy/gal should be able to put this to bed quickly and with no harm done. There should be a follow-up to whoever made the complaint that s/he needs to think (Think, McFly, Think) before making a report that causes someone else a problem.
Click to expand...

There should be a process to determine that there is no need to investigate further than a two-minute phone call.

Why respond to an email? The rest of the gov't uses certified mail . . . Email is too easy to fake. For stupid stuff that the investigator doesn't do over the phone, he / she should visit the subject at the time and place of subject's choosing.

"No, sir, I can't take time off of work and meet you wherever the FSDO is to tomorrow morning, I'll be here at work, earning my living. But I will be at the airport (KXXX) next Tuesday evening about 6:30 p.m. We can talk then."

My vacation time is limited and precious, and must be used in whole-day increments. Who pays for my time and gas to drive to the FSDO and back? Over nothing? And they expect the subjects of this treatment to be happy and polite???

P.S.--plan several minutes for the security screening to get into the FSDO, after you prove who you are, that you have an appointment, that the person you're meeting is present and available, and that your pockets are all empty . . . . More reasons to be "happy" to meet the investigator at his office, at a time convenient to him and your schedule be damned . . . .
 
op got a call ...umm, "you need to respond" ??
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"
My first thought is that @EdFred is jacking with me.
Click to expand...
then by responding or cooperating, cos he did also say "that you have received and understand it" gave up rights to privacy

from the first post
USER] is jacking with me.
privacy-jpg.68293
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
There should be a process to determine that there is no need to investigate further than a two-minute phone call.

Why respond to an email? The rest of the gov't uses certified mail . . .
Click to expand...

I have to deal too frequently with the IRS. They only do phone, fax, or snail mail. E-mail would be a glorious improvement for fact finding and evaluation.

BUT, this should be resolvable with a phone call. Like Bryan the under the radar flight instructor is going to take *that* log to the FSDO.
 
this is key, or start of it, unfortunately tho for op, a he said she said
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"
My first thought is that @EdFred is jacking with me.
Click to expand...
 
Luigi said:
Are you thinking of the sci fi writer L. Ron Hubbard? (also founded scientology)
Click to expand...
While LRH's sci-fi stuff is interesting, and I view his "other" writings something of a comedy, that's not the author I was thinking of. I'll remember eventually
 
Hank S said: ↑
There should be a process to determine that there is no need to investigate further than a two-minute phone call.

Why respond to an email? The rest of the gov't uses certified mail . . .
Click to expand...

or a voice on a phone call (from the first post) that sez
"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"
Click to expand...

a blatant violation of due process, in the real world
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
Slow day at the FSDO?? Seriously, how long do you have to be a government employee to lose all sense of reality and humor?? I'll be curious to see how long this looney-tune has been with the FAA.
Click to expand...
usually sets in quick, then goes downhill from there,

good news now tho, is lotsa folks can watch the guv in action

guv email (first post) started with invoking
privacy act notice
Click to expand...
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3), enacted into law by Section 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law93-579)
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/forms/nrc237.pdf

The PrivacyAct of 1974 (P.L. 93-579)
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/ombudsman_pr_act_st.pdf

this is only the start of the guv email, first post

prior verbally via phone
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"
Click to expand...

due process ?!

here's the second part invoked in the guv email
http://www.dodig.mil/Portals/48/Documents/Programs/Privacy Program/pa1974.pdf?ver=2017-04-14-103528-910
SECTION 2(a)
The Congress finds that –
(1)the privacy of an individual is directly affected by the collection, maintenance,
use, and dissemination of personal information by Federal agencies

<snip>

(4)the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by the
Constitution of the United States; and

(5)in order to protect the privacy of individuals identified in information systems
maintained by Federal agencies, it is necessary and proper for the Congress to
regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information by such
agencies.

(b)The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against an
invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies, except as otherwise providedby law, to --

(1)permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected,
maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies;
Click to expand...

given the above SECTION 2(a) , think hard about giving up that right, willy nilly
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
There is no reason to have an unnecessary fight. I self-taught that lesson a long time ago. I had been out if Law school 2-3 years. I was representing a guy on a completely BS case. I always described it as "he was charged with walking the streets if [wealthy bedroom community]at night without being a resident thereof." To make things worse, my contacts prof, who was in the mold of Kingsfield, was the town prosecutor. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge but spent a few minutes telling me what an ******* my client was. I stood there silently, saying nothing but thinking, "you can say whatever you want, so long as I get what I want." A lesson which stayed with me.

I'd rather see someone in Bryan's situation walk out of the FSDO with an ASI telling him he shouldn't have been a good boy and to tone it down, with no real repercussions, than spenda lot of time, money and aggravation battling BS.
Click to expand...
I hear you, and you makes sense, especially in a specific case - get the outcome you need, move on. Mature and practical, and skip the Don Quioxte fight. The next victim isn't Bryan's problem. But geez, while the fight might be uneccesary, it could be damned satisfying, given the time and money to do it properly.
 
I hear FAA, I think Hoover, sleep apnea, etc.
Sundancer said:
Concur, they do get to look - just don't go in hat-in-hand; in his position, and with deep pockets, I might say "No problem, you can meet me at my lawyers office", unless there is something black letter that requires visiting the FSDO. Then yes, go - with lawyer in tow. Easy for me to say, I know, but it feels like a fight I'd like to have, given the resources to see it through.

FAA bashing is fun, but then again, they have earned it. I get the new "kinder, gentler, PBOR" thing is the attitude du jour. But not (yet) willing to give them too much credit for a posture that should have been assumed decades ago. I mean, it's like wanting credit because you no longer beat your wife. . .it's great that you stopped, but you still deserve an a$$-kicking.

Let's see how it goes over a few more years - if the capricious, arbitrary, and nonsensical stuff slacks off, if they get consistency across FSDOs, if they compress the regs and make 'em readable, if they EVER get their act together on testing, etc. I think we put up with too much from these clowns. I hear FAA, I think Hoover, sleep apnea, etc.

I'd like to see a growing intolerance for this kind of intrusive silliness, and a method for making it hurt when it happens - budget impact, statutory limitations, etc., having to pay the fees when they loose on a NTSB appeal (without it being budgeted - straight out of their general fund- "sorry guys, no conference in Denver this year - we took a butt-whippin' on several cases).

I don''t usually "rant" (OK, maybe sometimes) but this one is left-field junk, unworthy of investigation - if it's their "policy", then per usual, they formulate policy like old people ice skate. Buy a computer. Use Google. See the obvious satire. Call it investigated, call the pin-head who made the complaint, tell him it was satire, close the books.
Click to expand...

comments from the utube site with plenty more
The FAA reckoned that Bob was too old and unsafe to fly, so they suspended his license. He got invited to Australia and he got a license here and flew a few airshows. Including this one at Archerfield, Brisbane, Queensland. He was only 73 at the time, but it's my shaky camera work, not his flying that's all over the sky.
Click to expand...

the issue is not about an investigation or complaint, but HOW u might go about it ffs,

not to mention accountability works both ways in the real world
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
I hear you, and you makes sense, especially in a specific case - get the outcome you need, move on. Mature and practical, and skip the Don Quioxte fight. The next victim isn't Bryan's problem. But geez, while the fight might be uneccesary, it could be damned satisfying, given the time and money to do it properly.
Click to expand...
Some things are more fun to fantasize about than to do.
 
So I guess Bryan and I shouldn't mention that we gave each other BFRs on the ground at Gaston's a couple of years ago while drinking beer and smokin' dope?
 
vman said:
usually sets in quick, then goes downhill from there,

good news now tho, is lotsa folks can watch the guv in action

guv email (first post) started with invoking

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3), enacted into law by Section 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law93-579)
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/forms/nrc237.pdf

The PrivacyAct of 1974 (P.L. 93-579)
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/ombudsman_pr_act_st.pdf

this is only the start of the guv email, first post

prior verbally via phone


due process ?!

here's the second part invoked in the guv email
http://www.dodig.mil/Portals/48/Documents/Programs/Privacy Program/pa1974.pdf?ver=2017-04-14-103528-910


given the above SECTION 2(a) , think hard about giving up that right, willy nilly
Click to expand...
You can keep the right to privacy, but you have no right to an airman’s cert.
 
Salty said:
You can keep the right to privacy, but you have no right to an airman’s cert.
Click to expand...
Doesn't flying fall under the pursuit of happiness? You know, those pesky
"unalienable rights"?
 
FORANE said:
Doesn't flying fall under the pursuit of happiness? You know, those pesky
"unalienable rights"?
Click to expand...
No more than driving, hunting, fishing, or any other activity that also impacts others.
 
FORANE said:
Doesn't flying fall under the pursuit of happiness? You know, those pesky
"unalienable rights"?
Click to expand...

Which are in the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document unlike the Constitution. So those words while they might give us all a warm and fuzzy feeling have no status under the law.
 
We need to move FAA to have the burden of proof like in a real court.
 
SkyDog58 said:
How about POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress, the military, ICE, TSA, and other government entities which get threads locked down quickly while bashing the FAA doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Loathing the FAA is not controversial. (sarcasm)

But you have a point.
 
Also it’s DIRECTLY aviation related
 
Ravioli said:
But you have a point.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't.

One is the governing body of AVIATION. This is an AVIATION board. The others, while occasionally are tangentially involved with aviation, 99.99% of the time are not and do not need to be discussed.
 
Hank S said:
There should be a process to determine that there is no need to investigate further than a two-minute phone call.

Why respond to an email? The rest of the gov't uses certified mail . . . Email is too easy to fake. For stupid stuff that the investigator doesn't do over the phone, he / she should visit the subject at the time and place of subject's choosing.

"No, sir, I can't take time off of work and meet you wherever the FSDO is to tomorrow morning, I'll be here at work, earning my living. But I will be at the airport (KXXX) next Tuesday evening about 6:30 p.m. We can talk then."

My vacation time is limited and precious, and must be used in whole-day increments. Who pays for my time and gas to drive to the FSDO and back? Over nothing? And they expect the subjects of this treatment to be happy and polite???

P.S.--plan several minutes for the security screening to get into the FSDO, after you prove who you are, that you have an appointment, that the person you're meeting is present and available, and that your pockets are all empty . . . . More reasons to be "happy" to meet the investigator at his office, at a time convenient to him and your schedule be damned . . . .
Click to expand...
My trip to the FSDO for the runway incursion went more like this:

  1. I get a call about 5wks after it happened.
  2. He tells me that we need to meet and bring my pilot and aircraft logs.
  3. I tell him that my aircraft is in annual so those logs will not be available for about 2 weeks.
  4. He suggests meeting earlier if it works for me to get most of it resolved.
  5. He mentions that he is currently working 4 x 10's and there is one weekday that doesn't work for him.
  6. He mentions that we can meet at the FSDO or somewhere else. I could tell he likes to get out of the office!
  7. I decide since I'm such a newbie that a actual visit to the FSDO will teach me way more than meeting at a coffee shop.
  8. I picked a time over lunch and he was fine with that.
  9. I arrived and after a bit of confusion over where to park was at the front door.
  10. To get in I needed to be buzzed in by someone which required stating the appt time and with whom.
  11. I was buzzed in, instructed to walk up to the 2nd floor, signed in and the secretary gave me a badge.
  12. No formal security that I recall.
  13. We walked about 40ft into a large conference room. Just the ASI and myself.
  14. He told this is not about taking away my license, but rather trying to get a better understanding for the incursion.
  15. It felt like about 20minutes of the 45min meeting was him asking questions and typing them into a database. He said that database was directly related to the runway incursion issue and because so many happen.
  16. After that he replayed part of the tower tape - I think just to prove that I verbally accepted 10L even though I landed on 10R
  17. I think he even played the part where the confusion (mine) was highest when I was instructed to fly north a bit but then almost immediately afterwards given a straight in again
  18. We talked about what I was doing differently now (went over what my CFI recommended and some of my own changes).
  19. He said it would not be a permanent record thing.
  20. We ended with me needing to bring in the aircraft logs when they are available.
  21. He offered to meet me at the airport for the second part but I told him meeting over lunch was preferred. I just didn't feel comfortable with the ASI being so near the plane...maybe I was paranoid for nothing?
  22. About 2wks later I drive in again. A different ASI (A&P) met us at the front desk. He quickly reviewed the logs. Found only two issues (he comments on how many he normally finds). First issue was that I could not prove the hours on the propeller. He explained that is a "me" thing and not my A&P's issue. And he finds that I referenced the STC number for the Whelen LED light when we installed it. I should have referenced the PMA which then does not required a A&P 337. He tells me to fix that. I then pour through the logs (about 15 minutes) and am able to determine the age of the propeller (it had a prop strike about 20hrs after it was purchased back in 1972) and then the governor was serviced in the 1990's. He's like good job. He commented that our A&P does a great job and our logs and that he's never had any issues with them. Now the price of that annual is seeming worth it.
  23. We shake hands, case closed.
...so I thought they were very accommodating with respect to times, days, etc. Obviously this might be more of an issue if you had to travel far. I think we probably could have done most of it over the phone and I probably could have faxed (or emailed) in pictures of the logs. I am thinking the OP could recommend a phone call and electronic logs and maybe not even have to go in. And I think he could also get them to meet him someplace.

I would just recommend having everything perfectly in order. If they find just one thing wrong they are then required to get it resolved (compliance). I am glad I didn't bring in a lawyer - I think the entire tone would have been different. Your call there. Since yours is not a flight violation and clearly you are not logging dual given I am sure it will be a very short visit. And as much as your satire can refect on the FAA it is not something they can violate you for.

I like to think of it like: They have the right to search your entire car if they have been given any valid reason to pull you over. Not the same as the police. But if they find something in the trunk you'll just have to explain it, fix it, retrain, etc to make it right again (the potentially painful part).
 
The FAA is in the business to govern. The FAA has no humor with Social Media posts. Neither does the rest of the government(s). You and your lawyer go and say you are sorry and you'll never do it again. Your lawyer should follow up with a letter to that fact and all will be foregiven because now you take it as seriously as they do and you've reached down in your pocket enough to prove it. Good news is the FAA can't fire you.
 
Hank S said:
Why respond to an email? The rest of the gov't uses certified mail . . . Email is too easy to fake. For stupid stuff that the investigator doesn't do over the phone, he / she should visit the subject at the time and place of subject's choosing.
are, that you have an appointment, that the person
Click to expand...

^^^That.
+10

Just saw this thread and it took 324 posts in to make this point.

Seems the process went like this:

1. Phone call from some number unknown to the recipient
2. Followed by an email.
3. Great thread on POA bashing FAA with lawyers thrown into the flames a bit also.
4. Some random, you are stupid, can’t read ad hominem attacks also.

Phone numbers and email addresses are easy to spoof. What proof does 6PC have that this is actually, really and for sure from the FAA?

If I received a phone call like this, I’d certainly tell the caller to send any corespondence by certified mail. I think I’d also give the FSDO a call right after receiving the email to confirm that this is for real.

It seems like it would be all too easy to prank someone like this by phone and email.

BTW, If this is on the up and up, and the FAA is really involved, I agree with those who suggest shutting up about it on social medial, POA, FB, etc, consulting with a qualified aviation attorney, and not volunteering anything to the FAA. Yeah, you may get someone who is “just doing his job” and wants to just check the investigated and counseled box, but you may get someone with an ax to grind and wants to use your certificate to grind it on. You did nothing wrong with the posts and satire, but it may end up being a long, painful, and expensive process to get it resolved. Think Bob Hoover.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Apparently the purpose of recent posts (like this one) is to keep it open until
a) BrYan is incarcerated for dismembering a FSDO employee
b) BrYan is exonerated and awarded an honorary ATP with appropriate type ratings by a FSDO employee
c) BrYan admits this was a hoax from the start
d) BrYan reports the whole thing results in a cordial discussion with a FSDO employee and no other action results. (My expectation)

I’d set up a poll with these options but I don’t know how and don’t want to learn.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Apparently the purpose of recent posts (like this one) is to keep it open until
a) BrYan is incarcerated for dismembering a FSDO employee
b) BrYan is exonerated and awarded an honorary CFII with appropriate type ratings by a FSDO employee
c) BrYan admits this was a hoax from the start
d) BrYan reports the whole thing results in a cordial discussion with a FSDO employee and no other action results. (My expectation)

I’d set up a poll with these options but I don’t know how and don’t want to learn.

Cheers
Click to expand...

FTFY

Too soon?
 
C would surprise me. Bryan wouldn't punk us like that.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
There’s gotta be a joke in here somewhere about lawyers being called solicitors, but I’m not going after it....
Click to expand...
In fairness, only English lawyers are called solicitors. And only some of them, at that.
 
BrYan + in-person FSDO interview = pilot getting a psych eval
 
jimhorner said:
^^^That.
+10
Click to expand...
Reading Bryan's post, it seem that the inspector was merely asking for an acknowledgement that he had been provided with a description of his rights as required under PBOR. I see no harm in responding to an e-mail merely confirming that you got it. If you aren't willing to do that, that just goes to show a non-compliant attitude and won't help you in the long run.
 
SkyDog58 said:
So I guess you never heard of the Solicitor General of the United States? Most if not all states also have one.
Click to expand...
True. But that use is in reference to one specific position. The word is not used to refer to lawyers in general. So, that does not negate my point.
 
PPC1052 said:
How so?
Click to expand...
It is if you want to misread it to say there is a requirement to talk to them or are ignorant of publicly-available FAA Orders. Of course, that's not what it means.

"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"​

Actual translation:
We are investigating this complaint. I'd like to speak to you about this, but our procedures under the PBR do not allow me to until I send you specific information about the PBR, (including your right not to talk with me at all). I can sent it to you by email. And, if you want to talk to me you need to reply indicating you received and understand it.
​
Someone asked a bit earlier what the argument was all about. I think it's mostly about the reality of FAA-induced paranoia.
 
Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

unreasonable search and seizure

Search and seizure

fruit of the poisonous tree

Miranda Warning

i'm thinking this is proper notice or due process?

iow, a voice on a phone call claims 'i can't talk to you, you need to respond/comply, then you can call me to discuss

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"
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top