FAA Order 8000.373

wait.... it's 1 April already?
 
cliff notes?...Meh, each of those "may" result in enforcement actions....:yikes::hairraise::yikes::mad2:
 
Last edited:
Are they going to release another order clarifying this clarification? It's vague and clear as mud. The gist of it seems to be that they will distinguish between intentional and unintentional violations and pursue corrective action like retraining for unintentional violations. ?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
cliff notes?...Meh, each of those "may" result in enforcement actions....:yikes::hairraise::yikes::mad2:
Click to expand...

It's a softening of the current enforcement policy. Rather than "spring load" to an enforcement, the policy now is to take everything into consideration, to follow an SMS approach.

The Agency is pushing for more informal counseling and remedial training rather than a violation.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It's a softening of the current enforcement policy. Rather than "spring load" to an enforcement, the policy now is to take everything into consideration, to follow an SMS approach.



The Agency is pushing for more informal counseling and remedial training rather than a violation.
Click to expand...

So is this an actual shift in agency wide methodology, or trying to address punitive attitudes of individual ASIs or FSDOs?
 
Now they must look at every thing, but as before they could pick and choose.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It's a softening of the current enforcement policy. Rather than "spring load" to an enforcement, the policy now is to take everything into consideration, to follow an SMS approach.

The Agency is pushing for more informal counseling and remedial training rather than a violation.
Click to expand...
Oh....how nice. :rolleyes:...anyone think it's gonna change a hill-o-beans? :rolleyes2:
 
Tom-D said:
Now they must look at every thing, but as before they could pick and choose.
Click to expand...

It's more like a reversal of "zero tolerance" policy that has beset every other enforcement agency.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It's a softening of the current enforcement policy. Rather than "spring load" to an enforcement, the policy now is to take everything into consideration, to follow an SMS approach.

The Agency is pushing for more informal counseling and remedial training rather than a violation.
Click to expand...
Oh....how nice. :rolleyes:...anyone think it's gonna change a hill-o-beans? :rolleyes2:


....maybe the cops will write a few warning tickets here on out? :goofy:

First thing that shoulda happened is for Huerta to recall everyone's badges....then implement a real safety organization using real genuine plastic ID cards. :D
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
Apparently there is a major shift in policy, for the better.
Click to expand...

Looks like it was written by the offspring of a lawyer and a bureaucrat, with a philosophy of why write a sentence when a page will do.

but, if this new FAA order is an improvement, then that's good.
 
Seems straight forward to me, if you screw up accidentally there's wiggle room. Do it on purpose this directive doesn't apply to you.
 
I'm not sure it is really that different than what I have been encountering in the past year or so. More like a statement of a change that has already been taking place.
 
The Order was pretty clear to me. And, I like it.
 
What it really does is lightens the file load providing a quick and simple path to deal with quick and simple issues. Done and closed with a talk.
 
A semi-formal form of the 'fear this and tremblingly obey' method. If you come up against the FAA, and you roll over and admit everything, accept blame, take your medicine, it will go easy for you. However, any attempt to defend yourself from enforcement by the FAA when they do violate you will escalate to criminal enforcement.

Carrot - stick writ large.
 
docmirror said:
A semi-formal form of the 'fear this and tremblingly obey' method. If you come up against the FAA, and you roll over and admit everything, accept blame, take your medicine, it will go easy for you. However, any attempt to defend yourself from enforcement by the FAA when they do violate you will escalate to criminal enforcement.

Carrot - stick writ large.
Click to expand...

photo-2276_zpsjdlyvpdz.gif
 
Henning said:
What it really does is lightens the file load providing a quick and simple path to deal with quick and simple issues. Done and closed with a talk.
Click to expand...
you think.....?


It looks like fluff-n-stuff......nothing to write home about. However, there is lots of hope -n- change stuff in it. :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
you think.....?


It looks like fluff-n-stuff......nothing to write home about. However, there is lots of hope -n- change stuff in it. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, if they can close the file on site or with a phone call, it's done, file closed, no follow up, nothing. That's not an insignificant savings in man hours over the scale of the agency.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, if they can close the file on site or with a phone call, it's done, file closed, no follow up, nothing. That's not an insignificant savings in man hours over the scale of the agency.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

The more cynical among us might point to budgetary cuts combined with enforcement workload that was increased by the Pilots Bill of Rights, rather than "seeing the light of safety" as a reason for the change.

About 3 years ago I told my first client to respond to a LOI with a request for the air traffic data related to an alleged runway incursion. The reply he received was a Warning Letter and the closure of the case.
 
midlifeflyer said:
About 3 years ago I told my first client to respond to a LOI with a request for the air traffic data related to an alleged runway incursion. The reply he received was a Warning Letter and the closure of the case.
Click to expand...

Was there a penalty, even a small one in the warning letter? Like 'you are on double secret probation for the violation for 6 months.....' ?
 
Henning said:
Yeah, if they can close the file on site or with a phone call, it's done, file closed, no follow up, nothing. That's not an insignificant savings in man hours over the scale of the agency.
Click to expand...
yeah but, you got that before this letter was issued.:yikes:


What's up with that?.....:D:goofy:

there is a dirty little secret that's happening behind the scenes.....risk based decision making software. I'm thinking this is for that....:yes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Warning Letters stay on file for 2 years, then are expunged.
Click to expand...

Understood, but the cogent point is - what does the warning say? presumptive guilt, as in: "don't do this again..." without finding that it was in fact done? Or does it say something like "we think you did this, but we can't prove it, and if you do something else within two years we will violate you for both"?
 
docmirror said:
Was there a penalty, even a small one in the warning letter? Like 'you are on double secret probation for the violation for 6 months.....' ?
Click to expand...

Mark and I were recently discussing this at the LPBA convention where we heard Christopher Hart Chairman of the NTSB give a fantastic presentation. It does seem that both the NTSB and FAA are softening a bit. At least Chairman Hart felt that an educational approach rather than a punitive approach is a more appropriate tact in many cases. I think Marks real world experience with his clients is beginning to prove this out.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
yeah but, you got that before this letter was issued.:yikes:


What's up with that?.....:D:goofy:

there is a dirty little secret that's happening behind the scenes.....risk based decision making software. I'm thinking this is for that....:yes:
Click to expand...

The attitude already is prevalent from my observations. They did not have the opportunity to close it without having to go through a 44709 though, even though it was run up to try. It was a lot of time and effort on their part spent trying to get my 709 ride done.
 
AdamZ said:
Mark and I were recently discussing this at the LPBA convention where we heard Christopher Hart Chairman of the NTSB give a fantastic presentation. It does seem that both the NTSB and FAA are softening a bit. At least Chairman Hart felt that an educational approach rather than a punitive approach is a more appropriate tact in many cases. I think Marks real world experience with his clients is beginning to prove this out.
Click to expand...
Yup....I too heard the Chairman speak at the AOPA chin dig a few weeks back and I too was impressed. :yes:

Now....will the FAA listen? ......:idea:
 
Henning said:
The attitude already is prevalent from my observations. They did not have the opportunity to close it without having to go through a 44709 though, even though it was run up to try. It was a lot of time and effort on their part spent trying to get my 709 ride done.
Click to expand...
Henning....one field office does not make an organization. I wish they all were like that.....they ain't.:nono:

go and try that again at some of the NE field offices.....and let us know how it works out for ya. :goofy:
 
docmirror said:
Understood, but the cogent point is - what does the warning say? presumptive guilt, as in: "don't do this again..." without finding that it was in fact done? Or does it say something like "we think you did this, but we can't prove it, and if you do something else within two years we will violate you for both"?
Click to expand...

From Order 2150.3b
Warning Notice. A warning notice is a letter or form addressed to the apparent violator that brings to that person's attention the facts and circumstances of the incident. The warning notice advises that, based on available information, the apparent violator's action or inaction appears to be contrary to the regulations, but does not warrant legal enforcement action. It also requests future compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. See sample warning notice in Figure A-10 of Appendix A.
Click to expand...

10/01/07 2150.3B

A-14

Figure A-10. Sample Warning Notice.

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

[Date] EIR Number

Mr. Fred Smith 1075 Victory Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90009

Dear Mr. Smith:

On May 26, 2004, you were the pilot in command of a Beech Baron N13697 that landed at the City Airport. At the time of your flight, it appears that you did not have in your personal possession a pilot certificate or photo identification in your possession or readily accessible to you in the aircraft. This conduct is allegedly in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 61.3(a).

After a discussion with you concerning this matter, we have concluded that the matter does not warrant legal enforcement action. In lieu of such action, we are issuing this letter which will be made a matter of record for a period of two years, after which, the record of this matter will be expunged.

It you wish to add any information in explanation or mitigation, please write me at the above address. We expect your future compliance with the regulations.

Sincerely,

Aviation Safety Inspector

Attachment: Privacy Act Notice
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
Henning....one field office does not make an organization. I wish they all were like that.....they ain't.:nono:
Click to expand...

Well, you've been inside so know better than I, but I have dealt with more than one FSDO over a few things through the years and really never dealt with an *******, at worst a lazy bureaucrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top