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

here is the thing, IF OP (or anyone) did give someone instruction and took money under the table... do you really think he will log it in his logbook as dual given?
 
WannFly said:
here is the thing, IF OP (or anyone) did give someone instruction and took money under the table... do you really think he will log it in his logbook as dual given?
Click to expand...

if the person was A) stupid enough to actually accept money for instructing when not an instructor and B) stupid enough to brag about it online then yes, I wouldn't put it past that person to do so.
 
eman1200 said:
if the person was A) stupid enough to actually accept money for instructing when not an instructor and B) stupid enough to brag about it online then yes, I wouldn't put it past that person to do so.
Click to expand...
think thats what ASI is trying to determine here. he doesnt know Bryan from adam and just going by 1 FB post taken out of context due to a piece of &&%$^
 
eman1200 said:
if the person was A) stupid enough to actually accept money for instructing when not an instructor and B) stupid enough to brag about it online then yes, I wouldn't put it past that person to do so.
Click to expand...

We all know you work for coke. :)
 
weilke said:
Some people simply lack any sense to detect sarcasm or irony. At times this comes with a overwhelming desire to always be right. If people argue with that type of character it can make for lengthy threads. We have such a spock character on beechtalk..
Click to expand...

So friggin true. Lets be honest...we have a few folks on here like that too.
 
Sundancer said:
Concur, they do get to look - just don't go in hat-in-hand; in his position, and with deep pockets, I might say "No problem, you can meet me at my lawyers office", unless there is something black letter that requires visiting the FSDO. Then yes, go - with lawyer in tow. Easy for me to say, I know, but it feels like a fight I'd like to have, given the resources to see it through.

FAA bashing is fun, but then again, they have earned it. I get the new "kinder, gentler, PBOR" thing is the attitude du jour. But not (yet) willing to give them too much credit for a posture that should have been assumed decades ago. I mean, it's like wanting credit because you no longer beat your wife. . .it's great that you stopped, but you still deserve an a$$-kicking.

Let's see how it goes over a few more years - if the capricious, arbitrary, and nonsensical stuff slacks off, if they get consistency across FSDOs, if they compress the regs and make 'em readable, if they EVER get their act together on testing, etc. I think we put up with too much from these clowns. I hear FAA, I think Hoover, sleep apnea, etc.

I'd like to see a growing intolerance for this kind of intrusive silliness, and a method for making it hurt when it happens - budget impact, statutory limitations, etc., having to pay the fees when they loose on a NTSB appeal (without it being budgeted - straight out of their general fund- "sorry guys, no conference in Denver this year - we took a butt-whippin' on several cases).

I don''t usually "rant" (OK, maybe sometimes) but this one is left-field junk, unworthy of investigation - if it's their "policy", then per usual, they formulate policy like old people ice skate. Buy a computer. Use Google. See the obvious satire. Call it investigated, call the pin-head who made the complaint, tell him it was satire, close the books.
Click to expand...

So it's evident you have basically no working knowledge on this subject, just silly inane conjecture.

And you think the FAA is the problem..........
 
AggieMike88 said:
After googling that author, that's not him.... book titles included characteristics of pin up girl genre, like "atomic blond bombshell" or something like that.... IIRC, there was a series of 4 to 6 books. If I think of the title, I'll let the gallery know.
Click to expand...

Are you thinking of the sci fi writer L. Ron Hubbard? (also founded scientology)
 
Doc Holliday said:
So it's evident you have basically no working knowledge on this subject, just silly inane conjecture.

And you think the FAA is the problem..........
Click to expand...

Call me inane too, then, as I agree with Skydog. Go ahead...

Changing the subject. Why do people include the word 'basically' into sentences? And isn't silly, inane redundant? Oh and you missed two commas, Doc. So basically, you have no working knowledge of sentence structure. Satire
 
Morgan3820 said:
Call me inane too, then, as I agree with Skydog. Go ahead...

Changing the subject. Why do people include the word 'basically' into sentences? And isn't silly, inane redundant? Oh and you missed two commas, Doc. So basically, you have no working knowledge of sentence structure. Satire
Click to expand...

You agree with me in regards to what?
 
SO MUCH ANGER IN THE VEINS. Man I love a good internet brawl.
 
Sundancer said:
Concur, they do get to look - just don't go in hat-in-hand; in his position, and with deep pockets, I might say "No problem, you can meet me at my lawyers office", unless there is something black letter that requires visiting the FSDO. Then yes, go - with lawyer in tow. Easy for me to say, I know, but it feels like a fight I'd like to have, given the resources to see it through.

FAA bashing is fun, but then again, they have earned it. I get the new "kinder, gentler, PBOR" thing is the attitude du jour. But not (yet) willing to give them too much credit for a posture that should have been assumed decades ago. I mean, it's like wanting credit because you no longer beat your wife. . .it's great that you stopped, but you still deserve an a$$-kicking.

Let's see how it goes over a few more years - if the capricious, arbitrary, and nonsensical stuff slacks off, if they get consistency across FSDOs, if they compress the regs and make 'em readable, if they EVER get their act together on testing, etc. I think we put up with too much from these clowns. I hear FAA, I think Hoover, sleep apnea, etc.

I'd like to see a growing intolerance for this kind of intrusive silliness, and a method for making it hurt when it happens - budget impact, statutory limitations, etc., having to pay the fees when they loose on a NTSB appeal (without it being budgeted - straight out of their general fund- "sorry guys, no conference in Denver this year - we took a butt-whippin' on several cases).

I don''t usually "rant" (OK, maybe sometimes) but this one is left-field junk, unworthy of investigation - if it's their "policy", then per usual, they formulate policy like old people ice skate. Buy a computer. Use Google. See the obvious satire. Call it investigated, call the pin-head who made the complaint, tell him it was satire, close the books.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to have an unnecessary fight. I self-taught that lesson a long time ago. I had been out if Law school 2-3 years. I was representing a guy on a completely BS case. I always described it as "he was charged with walking the streets if [wealthy bedroom community]at night without being a resident thereof." To make things worse, my contacts prof, who was in the mold of Kingsfield, was the town prosecutor. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge but spent a few minutes telling me what an ******* my client was. I stood there silently, saying nothing but thinking, "you can say whatever you want, so long as I get what I want." A lesson which stayed with me.

I'd rather see someone in Bryan's situation walk out of the FSDO with an ASI telling him he should have been a good boy and to tone it down, with no real repercussions, than spend a lot of time, money and aggravation battling BS.
 
Last edited:
Ken Ibold said:
Ok, my wife says $400 an hour.

For legal advice. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Click to expand...

Wait, you want to meet his wife for $400 an hour? This got that rough since Backpage shut down?
 
bflynn said:
Wait, you want to meet his wife for $400 an hour? This got that rough since Backpage shut down?
Click to expand...


There’s gotta be a joke in here somewhere about lawyers being called solicitors, but I’m not going after it....
 
Last edited:
Slow day at the FSDO?? Seriously, how long do you have to be a government employee to lose all sense of reality and humor?? I'll be curious to see how long this looney-tune has been with the FAA.
 
What exactly are we arguing about now?
 
abuse of process from the get go, then what happens next

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process

started like this with a phone call, from the first post
He says "I can't talk to you. I need to send you an email, you need to respond that you have received and understand it and then you can call me back and we can talk"
Click to expand...
then depends tho, what you may do next
 
Last edited:
In the words of another loser (who somehow fooled enough people to win)...
“We’ll see what happens”.
 
LDJones said:
Slow day at the FSDO?? Seriously, how long do you have to be a government employee to lose all sense of reality and humor?? I'll be curious to see how long this looney-tune has been with the FAA.
Click to expand...

They have a process (I'm sure). Someone makes a report, and an FAA guy/gal is tasked to check on the report. S/he doesn't have a choice. And that's how it should be. BUT, the FAA guy/gal should be able to put this to bed quickly and with no harm done. There should be a follow-up to whoever made the complaint that s/he needs to think (Think, McFly, Think) before making a report that causes someone else a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top