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

imwithtuxedo said:
Stereotype much?
Click to expand...
It’s a stereotype, but one founded deeply in reality.

My best friend is a lawyer. He is one because he’s good it and it pays well, but he absolutely hates his brethren and has since law school.

And that doesn’t mean that lawyers are inherently evil people, but when you put two of them together, the problems grow.

Kind of like the old saying about consultants: if you are part of the solution, there’s a lot of money to be made prolonging the problem...
 
Since it’s closed I’ll put my 2¢ in.

Any complaint has to be investigated regardless of evidence. Your Inspector realized that there was no evidence and that it was a joke.

Ignoring is bad and will escalate things as he mentioned. I’ve seen several instances where a simple phone call or in person meeting the issue would be closed but the person went dark. Those issues got elevated and further action was instructed by our guidance.

Any questions on how something should be handled or done can be looked up in our “Bible”. It’s publicly available and will show you how almost any conceivable item should be completed.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
 
Also, I learned so much from watching your video I'll buy you liquid sometime... oh, wait, would that be compensation?
 
Fearless Tower said:
It’s a great one. I do some maritime consulting on the side and use it all the time.
Click to expand...

Ravioli's True Story Time:
Client said to me, "I want your job. I tell you about my issue, you define an overly complicated way to handle it, and then ask me when I"LL be done."
I said, "I'm glad you understand the process. You think 2 days will be long enough?"

About 6 months later he left his position... to become a consultant.
 
Rushie said:
Did he really say "...no evidence to substantiate the fact that you accepted compensation...". ??

I hope that was part of the satire, like Federal Administration Association ROTFLMAO!! Great video!
Click to expand...
Yeah, he shoulda said "the claim that" or "the allegation that," but would you really be surprised to learn ASIs are as likely to make the same common language missteps as any other human being?
 
Fearless Tower said:
It’s a stereotype, but one founded deeply in reality.

My best friend is a lawyer. He is one because he’s good it and it pays well, but he absolutely hates his brethren and has since law school.
Click to expand...
That's too bad. I can absolutely understand why non-lawyers dislike some of the things lawyers need to do. But for a lawyer to feel that way, I think he needs to hang out with a better class of lawyer or find another area of practice. In my 40 or so years, the very few I've hated stand out (a lot! When I think of this subject two come to mind as poster boys immediately) and were typically shunned by other lawyers. They also weren't particularly good at their job, although it may be they saw their job in the same false way as many non-lawyers see a lawyer's job. And then, of course, there are the morons, although they overlap with the bad group a lot.

But by far, in 40 years, most I've come across have been honest human beings, focused on the best interests of their clients, and trying to resolve problems rather than cause them. I've seen more clients who have caused problems then their lawyers.

Ultimately all stereotypes are well founded in bigotry.
 
Great video. Do you also give haircuts and manicures without a license? (Asking for a friend.)

BTW, as a consultant, my business Card has “No answers left unquestioned” under my name.

Cheers
 
cgrab said:
Wait, are you wearing an FAA hat? Is this a ploy? Have you somehow been doing all these videos leading up to this one to make the FAA out to be nice guys?
Click to expand...

Every 10th frivolous complaint gets a free hat.
 
BrianNC said:
Agreed. But they're also based on some reality. That's what makes them stereotypes.
Click to expand...


Stereotypes are useful when applied to large populations. This is how mass marketing works. Stereotypes are dangerous to apply to any individual and must be used cautiously and with great awareness.

(Except when it comes to lawyers, of course.)
 
Skyrys62 said:
Stereotyping the stereotypes ;)


(btw..saying in jest)
Click to expand...

..or as Tom Lehrer put it in the intro to his song on National Brotherhood Week,

"Some people do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that!"
 
BrianNC said:
Agreed. But they're also based on some reality. That's what makes them stereotypes.
Click to expand...
The "some reality" is typically very, very small.

OTOH, maybe those who say pilots are all rich boys with expensive toys who only care about themselves are right.
 
If a stereotyped person stereotypes someone into their same stereotype does it all the sudden just become fact?
 
ARFlyer said:
Since it’s closed I’ll put my 2¢ in.

Any complaint has to be investigated regardless of evidence. Your Inspector realized that there was no evidence and that it was a joke.

Ignoring is bad and will escalate things as he mentioned. I’ve seen several instances where a simple phone call or in person meeting the issue would be closed but the person went dark. Those issues got elevated and further action was instructed by our guidance.

Any questions on how something should be handled or done can be looked up in our “Bible”. It’s publicly available and will show you how almost any conceivable item should be completed.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
Click to expand...

PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.1,Ch2,Sec3
1-139 PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS. Any interested person may petition the Administrator to issue, amend, exempt, or rescind a regulatory requirement. Petitions for rulemaking may also be initiated from within FAA. All petitions must be specific as to scope and purpose and must contain any information, views, and arguments which support the requested regulatory action. A summary of each public petition is published in the Federal Register to allow for public comment. Normally, the public has 60 days to submit comments on petitions for rulemaking and 20 days to submit comments on petitions for exemption. After the close of the public comment period, the FAA considers all comments received and decides whether to accept or deny the petition. If the decision is to deny, a denial of petition is prepared, coordinated, signed, and mailed to the petitioner. If accepted, the rulemaking proceeds until a final rule is issued. In addition, the final FAA action on each petition is published in the Federal Register.
1-140 PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING. If the FAA decides to accept the petition for rulemaking, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is prepared by the appropriate FAA office. The NPRM is published in the Federal Register for public comment. If considered appropriate by the FAA, a public hearing may also be held. The public comment period may vary based on the complexity and significance of the proposed regulatory action. After the close of the public comment period, the FAA considers all comments received and decides whether to proceed with a final rule or to withdraw the NPRM. In either case, the decision is prepared, coordinated, signed, and published in the Federal Register. Generally, a final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. (See 14 CFR part 11 for complete information regarding the rulemaking process.)
1-141 SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS ON NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NPRM) BY FAA PERSONNEL. Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.) sections 551 through 553, require that the FAA give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the process through submission of comments, with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After considering the material presented, the FAA must either incorporate those comments into the rule or address the comments in a general statement of the rule’s basis and purpose.
A. How to Comment. The FAA welcomes and encourages comments from all interested persons, including FAA personnel. The FAA examines each comment in detail and must justify its reasons for not adopting a comment. The following guidelines may assist in submitting comments:
· Simple “for” or “against” comments are of little value unless they include the rationale on which they are based.

· Comments beyond the scope of the notice should be avoided.

B. Inspectors As Commenters. Inspectors and specialists are encouraged to comment on rulemaking. An inspector or specialist submitting a personal comment to an NPRM should submit the comment as an individual, not as an FAA employee, and it should not be submitted on FAA letterhead.
Click to expand...
 
ARFlyer said:
Since it’s closed I’ll put my 2¢ in.

Any complaint has to be investigated regardless of evidence. Your Inspector realized that there was no evidence and that it was a joke.

Ignoring is bad and will escalate things as he mentioned. I’ve seen several instances where a simple phone call or in person meeting the issue would be closed but the person went dark. Those issues got elevated and further action was instructed by our guidance.

Any questions on how something should be handled or done can be looked up in our “Bible”. It’s publicly available and will show you how almost any conceivable item should be completed.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
Click to expand...

not really closed
ARFlyer said:
He goes: "Well, we have nothing so substantiate that you are in fact receiving compensation for flying. However there will be a note in your file that there was an investigation that could not be substantiated. This is not negative in anyway but the investigation would be able to be reopened in the event that at later time there is cause to believe you are in fact accepting money w/o the proper ratings."
Click to expand...
 
vman said:
not really closed
Click to expand...
Here's what happens. The result of an ending like this is "no action." Those are expunged in 90 days. But "expunged" like some state expungements is limited to not being accessible from publicly available records. In the case of the FAA, that essentially means, from PRIA. But it remains available to the agency (prosecutors and the courts, in the criminal expungement world; the FAA in the FAA world ) if something new comes up.
 
ARFlyer said:
Since it’s closed I’ll put my 2¢ in.

Any complaint has to be investigated regardless of evidence. Your Inspector realized that there was no evidence and that it was a joke.

Ignoring is bad and will escalate things as he mentioned. I’ve seen several instances where a simple phone call or in person meeting the issue would be closed but the person went dark. Those issues got elevated and further action was instructed by our guidance.

Any questions on how something should be handled or done can be looked up in our “Bible”. It’s publicly available and will show you how almost any conceivable item should be completed.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
Click to expand...
Man, that says it all, doesn't it? And I bet this sounds perfectly OK to 'em. . . I'm hoping the culture continues to change, evolve, demand more accountability, impose more limitations on this kind of nonsense, throw in more REAL due process, and generally do some reigning in on these arrogant bureaucracies.

I don't think they're "kinder and gentler" because it's the right thing to do - I think getting their hands slapped a bunch of times has been the bigger driver. That, and the adversarial climate they built that was getting attention on the Hill. And one more whine about "congress made us do it. . ."
 
midlifeflyer said:
Here's what happens. The result of an ending like this is "no action." Those are expunged in 90 days. But "expunged" like some state expungements is limited to not being accessible from publicly available records. In the case of the FAA, that essentially means, from PRIA. But it remains available to the agency (prosecutors and the courts, in the criminal expungement world; the FAA in the FAA world ) if something new comes up.
Click to expand...

If next year someone shows up for a commercial chexkride with his logbook endorsed by Bryan (done as a joke of course), they can certainly use the content of the file to decide on that new case.
 
Sundancer said:
Man, that says it all, doesn't it? And I bet this sounds perfectly OK to 'em. . . I'm hoping the culture continues to change, evolve, demand more accountability, impose more limitations on this kind of nonsense, throw in more REAL due process, and generally do some reigning in on these arrogant bureaucracies.

I don't think they're "kinder and gentler" because it's the right thing to do - I think getting their hands slapped a bunch of times has been the bigger driver. That, and the adversarial climate they built that was getting attention on the Hill. And one more whine about "congress made us do it. . ."
Click to expand...

Actually it’s mostly an internal culture change. Congress doesn’t understand the whole Compliance Philosophy. Everyone outside the GA Caucasus thinks we should be enforcing and fining.

The FAA is really pushing the CP process and to guide certificate holders back towards safe compliance. We still have the hammer but it has to meet the criteria before it is used. The FAA has realized that hiding in the bushes waiting for an airman to screw up isn’t the best approach to safety.

Getting Congress attention is NOT something you want. That drags in Washington, Senior Executives, and mountains of paperwork. The whole 60 Minutes special on Allegiant and the Southwest Incident were good examples. They were taken way out of context and interviews were changed to fit the narrative that the FAA wasn’t doing it’s job for simple not violating and fining these companies.

Culture change takes years to happen. This process was only started in 2015. But a lot has changed already for the better.
 
midlifeflyer said:
..or as Tom Lehrer put it in the intro to his song on National Brotherhood Week,

"Some people do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that!"
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this hilarious Michael Caine line from Austin Powers:

 
LDJones said:
More likely a 20-something newbie who thinks someone is stealing work from him.
Click to expand...

Funny. I was driving earlier and that was a thought that went through my mind. Possibly someone with a pile of student loans and from a different culture that doesn't know the concept of humor.
 
ARFlyer said:
The FAA has realized that hiding in the bushes waiting for an airman to screw up isn’t the best approach to safety.
Click to expand...
When will the local cops get that message? Guess there's too much money in fines and confiscation to give up.
 
ARFlyer said:
Actually it’s mostly an internal culture change. Congress doesn’t understand the whole Compliance Philosophy. Everyone outside the GA Caucasus thinks we should be enforcing and fining.

The FAA is really pushing the CP process and to guide certificate holders back towards safe compliance. We still have the hammer but it has to meet the criteria before it is used. The FAA has realized that hiding in the bushes waiting for an airman to screw up isn’t the best approach to safety.

Getting Congress attention is NOT something you want. That drags in Washington, Senior Executives, and mountains of paperwork. The whole 60 Minutes special on Allegiant and the Southwest Incident were good examples. They were taken way out of context and interviews were changed to fit the narrative that the FAA wasn’t doing it’s job for simple not violating and fining these companies.

Culture change takes years to happen. This process was only started in 2015. But a lot has changed already for the better.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the expansion and insight - I may be a bit short on patience after 40+ years of the "old" culture, and probably quick to pounce on evidence that business as usual is carrying on.

Still, I would like to see real due process, real accounability, real blow-back for misuse/abuse of power. Not so willing to rely on the FAA's good intentions for sustaining the "new" CP.
 
I’m not sure Bryan will share who the sucker was that reported him, but I have a pretty strong suspicion of who it was....

Would be shameful if I’m right.
 
Sundancer said:
Thanks for the expansion and insight - I may be a bit short on patience after 40+ years of the "old" culture, and probably quick to pounce on evidence that business as usual is carrying on.

Still, I would like to see real due process, real accounability, real blow-back for misuse/abuse of power. Not so willing to rely on the FAA's good intentions for sustaining the "new" CP.
Click to expand...
My take, since it was first announced, has been, the CP is not a "goodness of their heart" gesture. It's something the FAA found to be a necessity. The PBR substantially increased the workload for ASIs and required them to keep investigations on their desk longer. Budget cuts, in combination with the PBR, affected enforcement capability at both the ASI and Legal levels. They had to be more selective on what they moved up the ladder and had to resolve things cheaper.

I saw quite a bit of evidence ofa "kinder gentler FAA" for a few years before it was announced. Some results downright surprising. But formalization was needed for two main reasons - to "market" it to us and to bring resistant ASIs into line.

It's been successful as far as it goes, although one of the side effects seems to be more enforcement and even referral for criminal prosecution in the fraud/misstatement/flight without license cases.

Ultimately, if it works, it works, so it's continued success is on us almost as much as on the FAA.
 
I recently watched some of Bryan’s videos (two hours I’ll never get back), including one that features children. In the video, he openly states that he picked them up at a bus stop. I’m not sure if it’s kidnapping or child abuse, but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal, so I’m going to notify the FBI.



[This post isn’t serious. It isn’t really satire, either. It’s kind of like sarcasm, I guess. The kids in question are really cute, but I don’t think they’ll achieve the stated goal of attracting soccer moms to Bryan’s YouTube channel. The soccer mom in my house thinks Bryan is kind of cute. I won’t be watching any more while she’s around.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top