Can you believe this is a VIOLATED PILOT?

Actually, I suspect he's saving it for something like Locks of Love. A coworker of mine has made a couple of donations to them (or similar causes).
 
I'd think I'd look dashing with hair of any color. Well, maybe not dashing, but better.
 
gprellwitz said:
Interesting thought. Why would he be eligible to fly LSAs if his ticket is suspended? I don't thin that would be legal. OTOH, I don't think that there's anything to keep him from flying dual with another instructor, though I don't think the time could be logged as PIC.
Click to expand...


OK, ultralights then. :idea:
 
gprellwitz said:
Actually, I suspect he's saving it for something like Locks of Love. A coworker of mine has made a couple of donations to them (or similar causes).
Click to expand...

My middle daughter has grown her hair out really long, and is getting it cut shorter tomorrow--with the braided cut-off portion going to Locks of Love. Proud of you, Abby!
 
steingar said:
If he really didn't do anything wrong (which is not at all beyond the realm of possibility)
Click to expand...
If you read the case, you'll see that someone did something wrong, since the airplane was squawking 1200 inside the ADIZ -- the only questions are who did it, and whether or not the instructor was responsible. The FAA's position, upheld by the NTSB, with review denied by the USCA, is that it doesn't matter who did it because the instructor in this case was consodered to be the PIC, and thus responsible to make sure that the ADIZ procedures were complied with, which clearly they were not. You (and David) may not like that position, but that's the position the FAA and NTSB have held for more than 30 years since the Hamle case* when an instructor is giving instruction. Since it was admitted that this was an instructional flight, the only remaining defense would be that the trainee did something that the instructor couldn't prevent and couldn't stop (see Administrator v. Strobel, where the trainee chopped the throttle and hit the brakes at a critical moment on a botched landing), and I don't think you can make that argument in this situation. If you can't handle that, don't give flight instruction.

*"Our precedent makes clear that, '[r]egardless of who is manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained, the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-incommand.' Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977). This principle was reaffirmed in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36 (1988)."
 
Ron Levy said:
If you read the case, you'll see that someone did something wrong, since the airplane was squawking 1200 inside the ADIZ -- the only questions are who did it, and whether or not the instructor was responsible. The FAA's position, upheld by the NTSB, with review denied by the USCA, is that it doesn't matter who did it because the instructor in this case was consodered to be the PIC, and thus responsible to make sure that the ADIZ procedures were complied with, which clearly they were not. You (and David) may not like that position, but that's the position the FAA and NTSB have held for more than 30 years since the Hamle case* when an instructor is giving instruction. Since it was admitted that this was an instructional flight, the only remaining defense would be that the trainee did something that the instructor couldn't prevent and couldn't stop (see Administrator v. Strobel, where the trainee chopped the throttle and hit the brakes at a critical moment on a botched landing), and I don't think you can make that argument in this situation. If you can't handle that, don't give flight instruction.

*"Our precedent makes clear that, '[r]egardless of who is manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained, the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-incommand.' Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977). This principle was reaffirmed in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36 (1988)."
Click to expand...

Is there any serious or legitimate argument that the standard should be otherwise?

[edit:] I'll put it like this - from a legal perspective, that provides a clear, bright-line, rule that everyone is capable of understanding. If you're instructing, you're ultimately responsible, period. That's simple, it makes everyones' duties clear, it's easy to apply in a later court action. Further, it follows common sense - kind of a "the instructor is responsible on an instructional flight, duh" type of issue.
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Is there any serious or legitimate argument that the standard should be otherwise?
Click to expand...

Yow mean, the assumption that CFI is always PIC?

There should be exceptions -- when CFI is not in a position to assume PIC duties (in the back seat) or cannot reasonably be expected to recover from an error (student-induced prop strike, switching to 1200 once airborne, feathering prop, etc).

I know I try very hard to be ready to catch the inadvertent stupid move, but sometimes they simply surprise you.

My expereince is limited compared to many other CFIs on here, but besides the inevitable quick-saves on landings, the long-timer yanking out the mixture instead of the prop during a BFR was a shocker....
 
dmccormack said:
Yow mean, the assumption that CFI is always PIC? There should be exceptions -- when CFI is not in a position to assume PIC duties (in the back seat)
Click to expand...
Guess you'd better choose wisely when deciding whether or not to be part of such an operation.
or cannot reasonably be expected to recover from an error (student-induced prop strike, switching to 1200 once airborne, feathering prop, etc).
Click to expand...
That was covered in the Strobel case, citing the Hamre case (Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977)).
Despite respondent's status as flight instructor and pilot in command, we will not impose strict liability on him for all of his student's mistakes. Although flight instructors are expected to "do all things possible for the safety of the flight," they are not held strictly liable for its safe outcome.
Click to expand...
If the student reaches for the IDENT and hits the VFR button by mistake but you correct it immediately, you can probably cite that one and skate. If you take off from an airport inside the SFRA with 1200 in the box because you didn't check it before taking the runway, and don't realize it until Potomac calls it to your attention, you're probably toast. And if you allow the student to enter the SFRA without calling Potomac at all, you are almost certainly going to get something like David got.
 
Ron Levy said:
Guess you'd better choose wisely when deciding whether or not to be part of such an operation.
That was covered in the Strobel case, citing the Hamre case (Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977)).
If the student reaches for the IDENT and hits the VFR button by mistake but you correct it immediately, you can probably cite that one and skate. If you take off from an airport inside the SFRA with 1200 in the box because you didn't check it before taking the runway, and don't realize it until Potomac calls it to your attention, you're probably toast. And if you allow the student to enter the SFRA without calling Potomac at all, you are almost certainly going to get something like David got.
Click to expand...

I agree -- and so far I haven't been in the back seat of a GA plane as a CFI.

The Strobel case set a precedent, but you are still at the mercy of the court's interpretation of the situation (with all the benefits of hindsight, time, and expertise) -- if it finds you had the ability to correct and didn't -- you're screwed.
 
CT Arrow said:
picture.php
Click to expand...

But..........
If you put a plane on a magic treadmill, one that ALWAYS matches the speed of the plane's wheels will this beating stop?
 
Ron Levy said:
If you read the case, you'll see that someone did something wrong, since the airplane was squawking 1200 inside the ADIZ
Click to expand...

You seem to know a great deal given the fact that you weren't there. Maybe for your next trick you can use your amazing psychic skills to locate the remains of Jimmy Hoffa, or figure out where my black and gray socks disappeared to.
 
How far down Jesse's list is the thread ignore button?
 
Ron,

If the purpose of the flight ISN'T instruction - say a CFI is hitching a ride home from OSH with a couple of other pilots, and is in the back seat - do you think he'll still be held responsible?
 
steingar said:
You seem to know a great deal given the fact that you weren't there. Maybe for your next trick you can use your amazing psychic skills to locate the remains of Jimmy Hoffa, or figure out where my black and gray socks disappeared to.
Click to expand...

Considering it went through a few levels of appellate review...what that means is that if there's another story, it was either: 1) without credibility; or 2) never presented....

I hate to be the naysayer, but when it reaches that level (three stages of review), the facts aren't really in dispute anymore. They are what they are.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
If the purpose of the flight ISN'T instruction - say a CFI is hitching a ride home from OSH with a couple of other pilots, and is in the back seat - do you think he'll still be held responsible?
Click to expand...

The examiner at the FSDO sure seemed to imply that to me.

Flying in and around Osh would be a good example of a scenario where I'd think regardless of whether you were another pilot or a CFI, you'd want to be on your game to make sure the PIC didn't miss anything. Just things like make sure your transponder isn't squawking until the appropriate time, help following the railroad tracks, spotting other planes, etc.
 
dmccormack said:
The Strobel case set a precedent,
Click to expand...
To be accurate, Hamle set the precedent in 1977; Strobel merely followed it 18 years later.
but you are still at the mercy of the court's interpretation of the situation (with all the benefits of hindsight, time, and expertise) -- if it finds you had the ability to correct and didn't -- you're screwed.
Click to expand...
That's true, so if you're a CFI, stay on top of the situation and don't ever let your guard down for a second, even with the most skilled and knowledgeable trainee, because the one constant I've found in over 36 years as a CFI is that trainees are always finding new ways to surprise me.
 
steingar said:
You seem to know a great deal given the fact that you weren't there.
Click to expand...
Unless you're suggesting that three FAA witnesses all lied and produced falsified radar data and plots, then I feel confident in my statements.
A statement from a domestic events network (DEN) specialist working at the Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control (hereafter PCT), confirms that N27GS departed MTN without transmitting its assigned discrete transponder code, as required by NOTAM 3-2126. ...
The local air traffic controller at MTN provided a statement explaining how he became aware of the alleged initial ADIZ penetration, how he notified respondent via the radio that N27GS was not transmitting its assigned discrete transponder beacon code, and that "the pilot" acknowledged his failure to squawk the required discrete beacon code, but said "now he was." ... Ms. Ramirez also identified radar data and related radar plots showing the course flown by N27GS as it penetrated the ADIZ. Exh. A-6; Tr. at 64-72. She testified that the radar data and graphic plots of that data obtained from PCT and the National Capital Region Command Center show that N27GS departed MTN, situated within the geographical boundaries of the ADIZ, thereby entering the ADIZ without transmitting its assigned discrete beacon code. Tr. at 62, 66-67; Exh. A-6. Ms. Ramirez testified that N27GS flew south for 10 miles, exited the ADIZ, was out of the ADIZ for an hour and 40 minutes, and then re-entered without first establishing and maintaining two-way radio communication with PCT or squawking an assigned, discrete transponder code.​
​
​
​
Click to expand...
​
 
TMetzinger said:
If the purpose of the flight ISN'T instruction - say a CFI is hitching a ride home from OSH with a couple of other pilots, and is in the back seat - do you think he'll still be held responsible?
Click to expand...
By the FAA? Probably not. They'd have to show that the CFI was functioning as PIC using some other criteria. They were able to do that in one case when a more experienced pilot (who claimed to be an instructor but wasn't) took control of the flight from the putative PIC (Administrator v. Corredor), but absent an overt act such as Corredor's assumption of control, I don't see the FAA nailing a CFI who's just a passenger.

OTOH, that does not mean a CFI couldn't be found liable for damages by the jury in a civil trial if an accident occurs while the CFI is in the airplane as a passenger, even asleep in the back. There's a case I heard of (but have not been able to find) in which a CFI asleep in the back of a Cherokee Six was found negligent and partly liable for an accident because the jury felt he knew that the PPL flying the plane was not up to the task and should have stayed awake and helped him. But even if that one's apocryphal, there's also the famous case taught in law schools of Newberger v. Pokrass (27 Wis.2d 405, 134 N.W.2d 495 (1965)), in which a non-pilot passenger asleep in the right seat was found contributorily negligent for the accident which ensued when the pilot fell asleep. The jury said the passenger knew the pilot was tired and should have stayed awake to help the pilot stay awake, and reduced his award from the pilot accordingly.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless you're suggesting that three FAA witnesses all lied and produced falsified radar data and plots, then I feel confident in my statements.
[/LEFT]
Click to expand...

All three witnesses testified that they didn't receive a discrete transponder signal, which is not the same as saying that one was not broadcast or that the damn thing wasn't busted. As far as levels of review, I am under the impression that it is a rare day when any level of review keeps the FAA from violating a pilot for any reason.
 
steingar said:
All three witnesses testified that they didn't receive a discrete transponder signal, which is not the same as saying that one was not broadcast or that the damn thing wasn't busted. As far as levels of review, I am under the impression that it is a rare day when any level of review keeps the FAA from violating a pilot for any reason.
Click to expand...

Just to make a clarification, when I wrote a "few levels of appellate review," what I meant was that it went through a few different courts, at different levels on the "authority scale." I wasn't referring to a "standard of review" or "burden of proof."

In other words, a few different judges took a look at the record of this case, and none of them found any reason to question the facts as found at the trial level.
 
If I understand this correctly, the reviews said that all the lawyers in the original trial acted correctly, and no one misinterpreted the law. You may correct me if I'm wrong, since I know far more about things like chemistry and biology than how the law works. I have read that the appellate process in aviation is enormously one-sided, and thus give it almost no credibility.
 
steingar said:
All three witnesses testified that they didn't receive a discrete transponder signal, which is not the same as saying that one was not broadcast or that the damn thing wasn't busted.
Click to expand...
On that score, David's own statements in his various postings on this site make it clear that the transponder was operational, but not properly operated. Also, note that after entering the ADIZ and being told by ATC that the transponder was not properly set, the pilot admitted as such ("'the pilot' acknowledged his failure to squawk the required discrete beacon code, but said 'now he was.'").

In any event, it is clear to me that steingar has an agenda unrelated to the facts of this case, and I will not further debate those issues with him.
 
Since the only thing left of the dead horse you guys keep beating is a couple of hooves, bloodstain and some fur I'm outta here.

Anyone know when that ignore thread button will be operational?
 
I would point out that technology is not entirely an essential component if on wishes to avoid something. Jus sayin'.
 
TMetzinger said:
If the purpose of the flight ISN'T instruction - say a CFI is hitching a ride home from OSH with a couple of other pilots, and is in the back seat - do you think he'll still be held responsible?
Click to expand...
How is the FAA going to know that the person in the back seat is a CFI unless the pilot decides to tell them? They don't ask you about your passengers.
 
Everskyward said:
How is the FAA going to know that the person in the back seat is a CFI unless the pilot decides to tell them? They don't ask you about your passengers.
Click to expand...

Could be that you've got 4 people logging PIC time for the flight!

1: The guy flying the plane under the hood
2: The right-seater Safety Pilot
3: The back-left seater CFI (studying for CFII) instructing #1
4: The back-right seater instructing #3!
 
dmccormack said:
When money's at stake, friendships are quickly forgotten...

"I expected him to say something, after all, he is a CFI...."
Click to expand...
Guess you need to pick your friends better. I'll tell you that I had a CFI on board who was giving me an IPC when we had a nosegear failure. I had to talk to the FAA and the identity of the other person in the airplane never came up.
 
steingar said:
If I understand this correctly, the reviews said that all the lawyers in the original trial acted correctly, and no one misinterpreted the law. You may correct me if I'm wrong, since I know far more about things like chemistry and biology than how the law works. I have read that the appellate process in aviation is enormously one-sided, and thus give it almost no credibility.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's one-sided. Rather, and this is a very general statement, there is a presumption of validity in favor of the trial court's (in this case, the ALJ's) factual findings. It's the trial judge that sees the witnesses - hears the tone of their voices, observes the nervous fidgeting, and all of the other little things that are so important to credibility. On appeal, all that exists are the physical exhibits (i.e., ATC tapes, charts, etc.) and a written transcript. Trust me, you can't tell much from reading a transcript.

What that means is that factual findings are presumed on appeal to be correct, absent a complete lack of evidence in the record to support those findings. For instance, in a traffic case, say that the judge finds I was doing 70 miles an hour, even though the police officer specifically said I was doing 60 and there's no other evidence to indicate I was doing anything but 60 - in that case, that finding gets reversed, because there was no evidence to support the judge's finding. But, say that the cop said I was doing 70, but I said I was doing 60, and the judge finds I was doing 70 - that finding won't be reversed, because there's evidence in the record to support a finding that I was doing 60, and it's for the factfinder (the judge) to determine the credibility of the evidence presented.

So, that's how facts work on appeal.

Now, add in that appellate review of an agency's (be it the FAA, the NLRB, the FDA, whoever) is very deferential to the agency as a matter of law. Most appeals of agency enforcement actions are taken under the "Administrative Procedure Act", which provides that an agency is given the discretion of interpreting its own rules, and that absent a big mistake, the agency's own interpretation stands.

Them's the rules. What it comes down to is that, when dealing with adjudicatory matters, there has to be finality somewhere - in the interests of both society and the accused. What that means is, in the most general statement possible, a verdict or judgment is presumed to be correct absent a reason indicating it is incorrect.

In the case we're talking about, through 3 levels of review (the ALJ, the agency appeal, and the appeal to the D.C. Circuit), the accused was unable to show: 1) that the FAA was unable to prove its case (before the ALJ); and 2) that the ALJ made any mistakes of fact or law (on appeal).

And that's just how it works.
 
Everskyward said:
Guess you need to pick your friends better. I'll tell you that I had a CFI on board who was giving me an IPC when we had a nosegear failure. I had to talk to the FAA and the identity of the other person in the airplane never came up.
Click to expand...


I was providing an example -- it happens -- especially after an incident where tens of thousands are at stake.

I had a CFI aboard during an IFR training event and was asked to "call this number upon landing..."

I was PIC, so I did all the talking.
 
dmccormack said:
I was providing an example -- it happens -- especially after an incident where tens of thousands are at stake.
Click to expand...
Is there a real example where you can prove that "it happens"? We've already had two (yours and mine) where it "didn't happen".
 
TMetzinger said:
Ron,

If the purpose of the flight ISN'T instruction - say a CFI is hitching a ride home from OSH with a couple of other pilots, and is in the back seat - do you think he'll still be held responsible?
Click to expand...

Read the issue again, the Judge, as well as the precedent says that the CFI is PIC on an instructional flight. This particular flight was an instructional flight, no dispute involved in that. A CFI hitching a ride home from OSH, unless he negotiated the ride in exchange for instruction along the way, is not on an instructional flight. These guys are not stupid. This is not traffic court in Backwater Arkansas. If there is no cause against you, they don't go out of their way to create cause. Everything was spelled out in the administrators case and no defense was presented. WTF can anyone expect to happen here?
 
dmccormack said:
I honestly don't have time to list all the lawsuits where someone smelled cash and quickly ratted on their "friend."

They are legion.
Click to expand...
We were talking about FAA actions, not lawsuits in general.
 
JeffDG said:
Could be that you've got 4 people logging PIC time for the flight!

1: The guy flying the plane under the hood
2: The right-seater Safety Pilot
3: The back-left seater CFI (studying for CFII) instructing #1
4: The back-right seater instructing #3!
Click to expand...
That's theoretically possible, and I pity the FAA Inspector who has to sort it out if that plane busts the DC SFRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top