"inadvertent" actually means "inadvertent"!

That the FAA would pursue a suspension is no surprise, given their history of capricious and misguided actions; a shame the NTSB would endorse such, but they've been headed downhill for a while, as well.

Wonder what the total, actual costs incurred were to get to the point of a judge defining "inadvertant"?
 
Nailed by a damned paperwork snafu; there was nothing wrong with the airplane, no one was put in danger. Ludicrous. I wonder what that cost the pilot to (rightly) pursue. Makes one consider purchasing advance legal protection. I have it. Pilot should have right to be made whole over this.
 
The first paragraph of the Kolber Law Firm article states:

"If the FAA brings a successful enforcement action against a pilot for violating a federal aviation regulation (FAR), the penalty associated with the violation (typically pilot certificate suspension) is waived unless certain conditions exist. One of those conditions is that the violation was “inadvertent.”

Huh?

Shouldn't that state: "the violation is waived when (or if) certain conditions exist."
 
timwinters said:
The first paragraph of the Kolber Law Firm article states:

"If the FAA brings a successful enforcement action against a pilot for violating a federal aviation regulation (FAR), the penalty associated with the violation (typically pilot certificate suspension) is waived unless certain conditions exist. One of those conditions is that the violation was “inadvertent.”

Huh?

Shouldn't that state: "the violation is waived when (or if) certain conditions exist."
Click to expand...
You are correct. I'll fix it. Edit: fixed it

I was trying to phrase it so waiver is the default, but that doesn't work if I use inadvertent, so I got screwed up in the thought. I went with your "when."

Thanks. How much for your editorial services? ;)
 
Last edited:
Pro bono! :)

(I didn't know that was you...thanks for connecting the dots)

Nice job BTW! :thumbsup:
 
Sundancer said:
That the FAA would pursue a suspension is no surprise, given their history of capricious and misguided actions; a shame the NTSB would endorse such, but they've been headed downhill for a while, as well.

Wonder what the total, actual costs incurred were to get to the point of a judge defining "inadvertant"?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. To get to this decision, we're talking a trial and two levels of appeals, about 6 distinct processes including the investigation itself. But in many cases like this - remember, it's about the ASRS waiver, not whether there was a violation - the alphabet organizations weigh in with assistance so it may not have all come out of the pilot's pocket.
 
timwinters said:
The first paragraph of the Kolber Law Firm article states:

"If the FAA brings a successful enforcement action against a pilot for violating a federal aviation regulation (FAR), the penalty associated with the violation (typically pilot certificate suspension) is waived unless certain conditions exist. One of those conditions is that the violation was “inadvertent.”

Huh?

Shouldn't that state: "the violation is waived when (or if) certain conditions exist."
Click to expand...

LOL. You would think so but it was probably written by a lawyer, the same skill set that writes our laws and regulations. :cool:
 
@SkyDog58

Read then post. That might be a better methodology to use in the future and be less embarrassing for you.
 
I did read and then post. No embarrassment here. Besides it was just a joke. You know humor. Something you seem to fail to grasp again and again.
 
Time for PBOR 3, guaranteeing punitive damages and culpability for legal fees to be paid for by the FAA when they lose appeals.

Maybe that will teach them to atop screwing with pilots unreasonably
 
I suspect NASA would bristle at the court's description of their role in ASRS. They are more than just some neutral paper pusher in an FAA program, it is indeed NASA's program.
 
SkyHog said:
Time for PBOR 3, guaranteeing punitive damages and culpability for legal fees to be paid for by the FAA when they lose appeals.

Maybe that will teach them to atop screwing with pilots unreasonably
Click to expand...
That. Plus maybe a bit more - for non-emergency actions, approval by a board, controllers and pilots, members not/not appointed by Feds. Something like what the NTSB was supposed to be, but independent. . .
 
Sundancer said:
That. Plus maybe a bit more - for non-emergency actions, approval by a board, controllers and pilots, members not/not appointed by Feds. Something like what the NTSB was supposed to be, but independent. . .
Click to expand...

And while they're at it make the bureaucrats personally liable when they overstep their bounds.
 
The FAA inspectors involved with making the decision to persecute, errr, prosecute Mr. Boeta will just shrug and chalk it up to getting stuck with the wrong set of judges. and it will be on to the next persecution, errr, prosecution.
They will also make sure on the next one to find someone who knew the pilot in 7th grade to testify that he never did what the teacher told him to do thus nullifying the 'inadvertent' defense (shrug)
 
There is at least one federal agency that has defined the word "willful" as meaning "did not take enough steps to prevent the violation from occurring". And that has been the case for many years.

That the FAA did the same thing with the word 'inadvertent' on a paperwork matter does not surprise me at all. Too bad it took court action to get this resolved - it should have been common sense.
 
flyingron said:
I suspect NASA would bristle at the court's description of their role in ASRS. They are more than just some neutral paper pusher in an FAA program, it is indeed NASA's program.
Click to expand...
Depends on one's point of view. The concept of the program was actually initiated by the FAA as an extension of the existing ASRP. In 1975, the program was given to NASA to design and implement. "NASA would be a third party for the receipt, processing, and analysis of safety reports submitted by pilots..." One of the reasons for putting it with NASA was to avoid scaring off reports. The FAA figured "the effectiveness of the ASRP would be greatly enhanced if the receipt, processing, and analysis of the raw information received were to be accomplished by NASA rather than the FAA." Even then, the program was designed to be turnkey so it could be taken over by another agency if necessary. [Source: Federal Register, April 15, 1976]
 
SkyHog said:
Time for PBOR 3, guaranteeing punitive damages and culpability for legal fees to be paid for by the FAA when they lose appeals.

Maybe that will teach them to atop screwing with pilots unreasonably
Click to expand...
The FAA is like my home owners association. They can be dead wrong and you can take them to court but they're using your tax dollars or association funds for legal fees. If they lose and have to pay, they're gonna use public money not personal savings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top