FAA enforcement Air Venture Week

You guys are missing the point.

You can be cooperative and the FAA still says you haven't been.

You can have not intended it and the FAA still says you did.

It is not true that you not intending and being cooperative keeps you out of trouble. The FAA can disagree even with no evidence it's not true, and in that case you are in trouble; and you have no recourse.

It's like saying "all you have to do is not break the rules". Well, if you didn't break the rules, but they say you broke the rules, which are they going to go with? The statement is meaningless at best and misleading at worst.

It's pretty creepy when citizens buy into this kind of attitude from their government. The FAA is just here to help you. ROTFL

When the government gets to decide what your intention was then they aren't actually going off your intentions at all, now are they?
 
Last edited:
In this case, if intentional it's pilot cert. revocation (endangerment....what him cross the line Ripon to Fisk 200 feet above the conga-line, twice.

If it's failure to comprehend it's a medical grounding, what with the departure. Not one, but two events.

Boys and girls- be sure to quit BEFORE they tell you to quit.
 
Salty said:
You guys are missing the point.

You can be cooperative and the FAA still says you haven't been.

You can have not intended it and the FAA still says you did.

It is not true that you not intending and being cooperative keeps you out of trouble. The FAA can disagree even with no evidence it's not true, and in that case you are in trouble; and you have no recourse.

It's like saying "all you have to do is not break the rules". Well, if you didn't break the rules, but they say you broke the rules, which are they going to go with? The statement is meaningless at best and misleading at worst.

It's pretty creepy when citizens buy into this kind of attitude from their government. The FAA is just here to help you. ROTFL

When the government gets to decide what your intention was then they aren't actually going off your intentions at all, now are they?
Click to expand...
So the point has nothing to do with what he said, it’s more about assuming that the intent of the FAA doesn’t match what they say.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So the point has nothing to do with what he said, it’s more about assuming that the intent of the FAA doesn’t match what they say.
Click to expand...
No. The point is that what he says is highly misleading. It is not YOUR intentions that matter. It is not YOUR cooperation that matters. The ONLY thing that matters is what the guy that guy assigned to your case thinks. Claiming otherwise is misleading.

Saying that doing something gives you a better chance is a far cry from saying that doing it assures an outcome.
 
Paul Thomas said:
Are there documents that prevent enforcement? Talk about an incentive to be forthright when everyone seems to think the FAA is only out to get people. I would like to learn more about it. Quite frankly, I'm not even familiar with procedure for an investigation.
Click to expand...
Yes. See AC 2150.3C
 
Trent Palmer is perfect proof of my claim. He was cooperative. His intentions were not to break the rules. He was violated.

You and I can disagree with his stated intentions, but that does not change the fact that it is was not HIS intentions and cooperation that mattered.
 
Salty said:
Trent Palmer is perfect proof of my claim. He was cooperative. His intentions were not to break the rules. He was violated.

You and I can disagree with his stated intentions, but that does not change the fact that it is was not HIS intentions and cooperation that mattered.
Click to expand...

So you were involved on the Trent Palmer case? And you had access to the files on his side as well as the FAA side? Interesting.
 
Salty said:
No. The point is that what he says is highly misleading. It is not YOUR intentions that matter. It is not YOUR cooperation that matters. The ONLY thing that matters is what the guy that guy assigned to your case thinks. Claiming otherwise is misleading.

Saying that doing something gives you a better chance is a far cry from saying that doing it assures an outcome.
Click to expand...

Serious question.

If a person’s actions are observed by a third party and the third party can reasonably conclude that first person’s intent may have been clouded by diminished or impaired cognitive capacity, does that matter? Would it matter if an investigation later identified the first person was using a prescribed medication that included a warning not to operate heavy machinery or drive a car?

It’s given that 10,000 other pilots flew that same arrival and departure without similar results in this example.

Or is your position that no one can objectively question anyone else’s cognitive capacity?
 
TCABM said:
Serious question.

If a person’s actions are observed by a third party and the third party can reasonably conclude that first person’s intent may have been clouded by diminished or impaired cognitive capacity, does that matter? Would it matter if an investigation later identified the first person was using a prescribed medication that included a warning not to operate heavy machinery or drive a car?

It’s given that 10,000 other pilots flew that same arrival and departure without similar results in this example.

Or is your position that no one can objectively question anyone else’s cognitive capacity?
Click to expand...
My position is that being cooperative and having legal intentions does not guarantee you will not be sent down the violation path.
 
Salty said:
Nothing I said requires any of that nonsense.
Click to expand...

But you just cited that case as your "proof". And to do so would mean you would have full knowledge of the entire case, not just what the one side posted on the internet.
 
Doc Holliday said:
But you just cited that case as your "proof". And to do so would mean you would have full knowledge of the entire case, not just what the one side posted on the internet.
Click to expand...
No. I only need to know what his stated intentions were and to see that he cooperated. That's all you said was needed. The fact that you think I need all the rest is actually proof I'm right.
 
Salty said:
No. I only need to know what his stated intentions were and to see that he cooperated. That's all you said was needed.
Click to expand...

LOL.

So you did see the FAA files and they showed he cooperated during the investigation, yet the FAA decided to ignore that and violate him?
 
Salty said:
You guys are missing the point.

You can be cooperative and the FAA still says you haven't been.

You can have not intended it and the FAA still says you did . . .
Click to expand...
The same can be said for teachers, parents, siblings, spouses, bosses, and people at large.
Since teachers, parents, siblings, spouses, bosses, and people at large are generally human beings who have faults.
You have basically postulated that FAA employees are human.

I'm young, but have found that cooperating with imperfect people (up to the point they stop cooperating with me) yields the best results.
 
Salty said:
No. The point is that what he says is highly misleading. It is not YOUR intentions that matter. It is not YOUR cooperation that matters. The ONLY thing that matters is what the guy that guy assigned to your case thinks. Claiming otherwise is misleading.

Saying that doing something gives you a better chance is a far cry from saying that doing it assures an outcome.
Click to expand...
I would agree insofar as it is the perceived cooperation or intent, but that perception is most likely accurate when it’s all said and done.
 
billsgs126 said:
The same can be said for teachers, parents, siblings, spouses, bosses, and people at large.
Since teachers, parents, siblings, spouses, bosses, and people at large are generally human beings who have faults.
You have basically postulated that FAA employees are human.

I'm young, but have found that cooperating with imperfect people (up to the point they stop cooperating with me) yields the best results.
Click to expand...
I have never said you should act like a jerk. I said that acting "right" is not a guarantee of anything.
 
Salty said:
No. The point is that what he says is highly misleading. It is not YOUR intentions that matter. It is not YOUR cooperation that matters. The ONLY thing that matters is what the guy that guy assigned to your case thinks. Claiming otherwise is misleading.

Saying that doing something gives you a better chance is a far cry from saying that doing it assures an outcome.
Click to expand...
I would agree insofar as it is the perception of intent or cooperation, but I can’t say that I’ve seen evidence that the perception will be significantly incorrect in an investigation.
 
There have been a number of events over the years that would make great stories in the NASA aviation reports. Many at OSH that we discuss. If nothing else as a follow up to the community in something like the Aviation safety magazine, it would reinforce the FAA really is there with constructive help for folks. Or the consequences of the latter.
 
bbchien said:
Even worse, he's a radio hog. Incapacitated the whole conga line. He impacted EVERYONE else.
Click to expand...
Llewtrah381 said:
To do so is entirely in the public interest, IMHO. There may be people on here who may say the FAA should stay out of this pilot’s cognitive decline and OSH should be a “guilt-free zone” but I think reasonable people would see this as why we have standards to protect the public, difficult as they may be to articulate fairly sometimes.
Click to expand...
There's good reasons for OSH to be a *mostly* "guilt-free zone" but N4301R went WAY over the line and endangered a lot of other people. I really hope the FAA doesn't look the other way on this one.

Those who have been around may remember "Cessna 53A" about 20 years ago... But at least that guy was merely completely clueless and was able to follow ATC instructions.

Then there was the Luscombe who landed on 27 without talking to anyone while we were all on approach to 9. Caused a P-51 and a B-25 to go around, but he had the good sense to at least stay off the radio and not fly into the arrival after he poured on the coals and bailed out.

So, I think N4301R may actually be the worst we've ever seen at OSH... And that's saying something!

455 Bravo Uniform said:
The arrival I can see being overlooked for whatever reasons. The departure not.
Click to expand...
If you mean on the part of the FAA, I agree.

If you mean on the part of the pilot, sorry, no. The whole world knows there's a procedure to get in there, and even if someone's been living under a rock since 1978 they would be given the notice if they properly prepared for the flight. There's no excuse to be that clueless on the arrival or the departure.

Certainly the departure was a bit more egregious, you can't just have the tower tell you something and then ignore their existence, nor is departing on a taxiway with airplanes on it ever a reasonable thing to do.
 
Salty said:
You guys are missing the point.

You can be cooperative and the FAA still says you haven't been.

You can have not intended it and the FAA still says you did.

It is not true that you not intending and being cooperative keeps you out of trouble. The FAA can disagree even with no evidence it's not true, and in that case you are in trouble; and you have no recourse.

It's like saying "all you have to do is not break the rules". Well, if you didn't break the rules, but they say you broke the rules, which are they going to go with? The statement is meaningless at best and misleading at worst.

It's pretty creepy when citizens buy into this kind of attitude from their government. The FAA is just here to help you. ROTFL

When the government gets to decide what your intention was then they aren't actually going off your intentions at all, now are they?
Click to expand...
Your problem is you think discretion should assigned to the violator. The FARs are not written with culpability (knowingly, recklessly, purposely, negligently). The government doesn’t need to decide what your intent was. You either did it or you didn’t, but there is discretion assigned the inspector.
 
Clip4 said:
Your problem is you think discretion should assigned to the violator. The FARs are not written with culpability (knowingly, recklessly, purposely, negligently). The government doesn’t need to decide what your intent was. You either did it or you didn’t, but there is discretion assigned the inspector.
Click to expand...
This is proof of my position’s validity. Just being cooperative and not having bad intentions is not a guarantee you will not be violated.
 
Salty said:
This is proof of my position’s validity. Just being cooperative and not having bad intentions is not a guarantee you will not be violated.
Click to expand...
You say that like it’s a bad thing.

“Sorry, Officer - it takes me six drinks to get drunk and I only had five. I honestly didn’t think I was driving drunk”
 
Llewtrah381 said:
You say that like it’s a bad thing.

“Sorry, Officer - it takes me six drinks to get drunk and I only had five. I honestly didn’t think I was driving drunk”
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying that in contradiction to the nonsense doc Holliday is spewing that nobody should worry about being violated unless they are hardened criminals.
 
Salty said:
No. I’m saying that in contradiction to the nonsense doc Holliday is spewing that nobody should worry about being violated unless they are hardened criminals.
Click to expand...
So do you have examples of people who were violated for something they did at Oshkosh unintentionally and with good attitude?
 
Salty said:
No. I’m saying that in contradiction to the nonsense doc Holliday is spewing that nobody should worry about being violated unless they are hardened criminals.
Click to expand...

Please point out the post where I made such a comment.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So do you have examples of people who were violated for something they did at Oshkosh unintentionally and with good attitude?
Click to expand...
I've presented my logic already. What you ask for is illogical. I can't show that you've died. But it is not logical to use that to conclude that you can never die.
 
Salty said:
I've presented my logic already. What you ask for is illogical. I can't show that you've died. But it is not logical to use that to conclude that you can never die.
Click to expand...
You’ve presented “logic” that Trent Palmer is an example that shows how people get violated at Oshkosh. You’ve presented “logic” that the FAA doesn’t have any leeway in whether or not a violation is issued. Neither of those logically has anything to do with the statement made.
 
MauleSkinner said:
You’ve presented “logic” that Trent Palmer is an example that shows how people get violated at Oshkosh. You’ve presented “logic” that the FAA doesn’t have any leeway in whether or not a violation is issued. Neither of those logically has anything to do with the statement made.
Click to expand...
I never said "at Oshkosh" in any of my posts.
 
I thought we were discussing a singular event sequence at Oshkosh involving one pilot.

Salty seems to have a fixation on the long past Trent Palmer activity.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But the post you’re arguing against was about violations at Oshkosh.
Click to expand...
Yes, and my logic still applies. I used an example outside of Oshkosh to support my logic, but that doesn't negate it. I'll say it one last time.

It is not the pilots opinion of their intent that counts, it is the FAA's opinion of the pilots intent.
It is not the pilots opinion of their cooperation that counts, it is it the FAA"s opinion of the pilots cooperation.

Therefore, it is not logical to state that if you, as a pilot had good intent and cooperate, that you will not be violated. The FAA may not agree with you, and that is whose opinion that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top