Help settle an argument...

Zeldman

Zeldman

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
17,262
Location
high desert NM
Display Name
Display name:
Billy
Ok, not really an argument as we can't decide on what the point is to argue about.

The subject is FAR violations.

1. Say the FAA found out a private non IR pilot purposely flew a little IMC while on a VFR flight 22 years ago. And that pilot is no longer an active pilot...Can that pilot still be charged.??

2. 22 years ago a commercial pilot doing a charter found out his medical had expired the day before the flight. Now that pilot flies for a major..Can that pilot still be charged.??

My buddy and I live for arguments, the more senseless and baseless, the better. We can't start this argument on the above subjects until we know if there is a statute of limitations on a FAR violation. Either an accidental violation or an intentional violation.
 
"can"? I suppose. "will"? Probably not, unless someone is really out to nail the person for other reasons.
 
§ 821.33 Motion to dismiss stale complaint.
Where the complaint states allegations of offenses which occurred more than 6 months prior to the Administrator's advising the respondent as to reasons for proposed action under 49 U.S.C. 44709(c), the respondent may move to dismiss such allegations as stale pursuant to the following provisions:

(a) In those cases where the complaint does not allege lack of qualification of the respondent:

(1) The Administrator shall be required to show, by reply filed within 15 days after the date of service of the respondent's motion, that good cause existed for the delay in providing such advice, or that the imposition of a sanction is warranted in the public interest, notwithstanding the delay or the reasons therefor.

(2) If the Administrator does not establish good cause for the delay, or for the imposition of a sanction in the public interest notwithstanding the delay, the law judge shall dismiss the stale allegations and proceed to adjudicate the remaining portion of the complaint, if any.

(b) In those cases where the complaint alleges lack of qualification of the respondent, the law judge shall first determine whether an issue of lack of qualification would be presented if all of the allegations, stale and timely, are assumed to be true. If so, the law judge shall deny the respondent's motion. If not, the law judge shall proceed as in paragraph (a) of this section.
 
Zeldman said:
1. Say the FAA found out a private non IR pilot purposely flew a little IMC while on a VFR flight 22 years ago. And that pilot is no longer an active pilot...Can that pilot still be charged.?? 2. 22 years ago a commercial pilot doing a charter found out his medical had expired the day before the flight. Now that pilot flies for a major..Can that pilot still be charged.??
Click to expand...
In general, the Feds are required to initiate enforcement actions within 6 months to 2 years depending on the type of violation. However, some violations that fall "outside" the normal jurisdiction of the NTSB/FAA administrative process can allow for longer time limits. Here's one table below, but the the linked Order gives more detail.

Some additional reading.
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1785&context=jalc

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_2150.3C.pdf
upload_2021-12-15_13-14-51.png
 
My understanding is that the stale complaint limit only applies if the FAA knows about the violation for that period of time prior to initiating enforcement action…it’s not necessarily the date of the violation itself. But I have no idea where I got that supposed knowledge.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
"can"? I suppose. "will"? Probably not, unless someone is really out to nail the person for other reasons.
Click to expand...

This is probably the most realistic answer. We are done with the ''other reason'' point now. We agree that the other reason would most likely be a personal vendetta a fed may have against a pilot.

We both agree that the statute of limitations start when the violation was discovered, not when it actually occurred. The arguing point is how long can a civil violation go undiscovered and still have a action taken against the pilot.

The chart Bell206 provided will give me a good advantage.!!

Like I said earlier, we argue for fun and sometimes we learn something. I don't think the RoadRunner/Coyote argument will ever be settled...
 
Zeldman said:
My buddy and I live for arguments, the more senseless and baseless, the better. We can't start this argument on the above subjects until we know if there is a statute of limitations on a FAR violation. Either an accidental violation or an intentional violation.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered above. In US criminal cases the limitation / prescriptive period begins when the authority with jurisdiction first becomes aware of an actionable incident, so it is possible that a limitation period would not apply. However, I cannot conceive of a way that in the two examples given the FAA could "know," as in be able to prove, either incident 22 years later. Chain of custody alone would be a *****. (And why 22 years? Partying like it's 1999?)
 
MauleSkinner said:
My understanding is that the stale complaint limit only applies if the FAA knows about the violation for that period of time prior to initiating enforcement action…it’s not necessarily the date of the violation itself. But I have no idea where I got that supposed knowledge.
Click to expand...
^that
 
Warren Dunes said:
Asked and answered above. In US criminal cases the limitation / prescriptive period begins when the authority with jurisdiction first becomes aware of an actionable incident, so it is possible that a limitation period would not apply. However, I cannot conceive of a way that in the two examples given the FAA could "know," as in be able to prove, either incident 22 years later. Chain of custody alone would be a *****. (And why 22 years? Partying like it's 1999?)
Click to expand...
^and that. It would have to be quite a doozy of a case in order for the Feds to go after a 22 yo violation.
 
I'd propose that it's a debate....not an argument. Maybe I'm wrong but argument implies that he's not your friend. Debating for the sport of it though, makes sense to me.....
 
Brad W said:
I'd propose that it's a debate....not an argument. Maybe I'm wrong but argument implies that he's not your friend. Debating for the sport of it though, makes sense to me.....
Click to expand...

We have known each other for better of 44 years now. Our wives call it arguing, and sometimes it can become a little....uh.... in depth. But overall it is in fun.
 
Zeldman said:
Ok, not really an argument as we can't decide on what the point is to argue about.

The subject is FAR violations.

1. Say the FAA found out a private non IR pilot purposely flew a little IMC while on a VFR flight 22 years ago. And that pilot is no longer an active pilot...Can that pilot still be charged.??

2. 22 years ago a commercial pilot doing a charter found out his medical had expired the day before the flight. Now that pilot flies for a major..Can that pilot still be charged.??

My buddy and I live for arguments, the more senseless and baseless, the better. We can't start this argument on the above subjects until we know if there is a statute of limitations on a FAR violation. Either an accidental violation or an intentional violation.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are arguing with yourself about some thing you did 22 years ago and some one might rat you out
 
:) I'm pretty sure POA is for CREATING arguments, not settling them. I'm new here, so I could be wrong, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top