"Please call the tower..."

DJTorrente said:
Unfortunately that hasn't exactly been my experience. EDP looks good on paper; never seen it implemented.

For example, a 50 year pilot who's flown himself for business and pleasure, holds an ATP, with a spotless flying record before and since, has a minor and at most technical infraction; cooperates completely with the FSDO investigation, and completes a flawless 709 ride.

Yeah, throw it in the hopper, let it sit for three years (post complaint to avoid the stale complaint rule), then dig up the festering case and proceed to enforcement. I'm hoping as least someone got his set of steak knives.
Click to expand...


Care to elaborate without all of the cryptic references?
 
RotorAndWing said:
Care to elaborate without all of the cryptic references?
Click to expand...

The only modestly 'cryptic' reference has a link attached. I'd have thought it was a widely recognizable pop-culture reference, particularly if anyone has any interest in the courtroom drama genre. Or you can follow the link.
 
DJTorrente said:
The only modestly 'cryptic' reference has a link attached. I'd have thought it was a widely recognizable pop-culture reference, particularly if anyone has any interest in the courtroom drama genre. Or you can follow the link.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the link.

Are you referring to an event that happened to you?
 
My one experience with 'call the tower' was more or less an interrogation. I didn't mind the questions about who I was or how many souls on board, but after that every question was about my actions which resulted in the request to call them.

Of course, being I am, who I am, I was as evasive as possible. Which led to the guy on the phone who identified himself as the regional mgr warning me that not cooperating wouldn't help the cause, and he was planning to forward this situation for possible enforcement action. I made a closing remark that was kind of like; 'well, now you understand my reluctance to discuss the actions, given that you plan to send it for further investigation right?' He didn't have a very snappy comeback.

The most interesting part is that this was the last I ever heard of the deal. I'm betting he went back, took a look at the conversation, my replies on the radio, and whatever info he could find, and discovered that I wasn't at fault in any way that he could show a deviation, and let it drop.
 
docmirror said:
My one experience with 'call the tower' was more or less an interrogation. I didn't mind the questions about who I was or how many souls on board, but after that every question was about my actions which resulted in the request to call them.

Of course, being I am, who I am, I was as evasive as possible. Which led to the guy on the phone who identified himself as the regional mgr warning me that not cooperating wouldn't help the cause, and he was planning to forward this situation for possible enforcement action. I made a closing remark that was kind of like; 'well, now you understand my reluctance to discuss the actions, given that you plan to send it for further investigation right?' He didn't have a very snappy comeback.

The most interesting part is that this was the last I ever heard of the deal. I'm betting he went back, took a look at the conversation, my replies on the radio, and whatever info he could find, and discovered that I wasn't at fault in any way that he could show a deviation, and let it drop.
Click to expand...

Do you not recognize that your attitude and actions were the root? Do you not understand that attitude is the key factor they are looking for regardless of 'call the tower' or a 709 ride? They are looking for any of the 'Hazardous personality traits' the entire time.

The game of Life is much easier to play if you understand the basic rule, and that is treat people as you expect to be treated.
 
+1

In college I took an aviation law course where they told you NOT to call the tower. I don't believe that's good advice. If you screwed up call, apologize and tell them what led to the mistake. Take responsibility!
 
DJTorrente said:
Unfortunately that hasn't exactly been my experience. EDP looks good on paper; never seen it implemented.

For example, a 50 year pilot who's flown himself for business and pleasure, holds an ATP, with a spotless flying record before and since, has a minor and at most technical infraction; cooperates completely with the FSDO investigation, and completes a flawless 709 ride.

Yeah, throw it in the hopper, let it sit for three years (post complaint to avoid the stale complaint rule), then dig up the festering case and proceed to enforcement.
Click to expand...
I think either your facts are wrong or the FAA personnel involved violated Federal law -- and I suspect it's the former. The stale complaint rule is very hard for the FAA to get around if they clearly knew of the issue but waited three years to initiate an enforcement action -- especially if they took other non-enforcement action at the time.
 
Swampfox201 said:
+1

In college I took an aviation law course where they told you NOT to call the tower. I don't believe that's good advice. If you screwed up call, apologize and tell them what led to the mistake. Take responsibility!
Click to expand...

Unless you created a heinous enough of a situation, or you make your living flying, and the union provides your lawyer and you will starve if you take a 90 day rip, there are no consequences that will outweigh the cost of your legal representation. If you create a heinous enough situation, the FAA will be the least of your worries, the DA will be coming after you, and they can put you in prison.

If all you did was bend metal, I have not seen the value in not cooperating. Of course the attorneys may have a different opinion.
 
Swampfox201 said:
+1

In college I took an aviation law course where they told you NOT to call the tower. I don't believe that's good advice. If you screwed up call, apologize and tell them what led to the mistake. Take responsibility!
Click to expand...
Did that course use Scott Hamilton's book as a text? Hamilton definitely makes that suggestion (with a bunch of context). He's well experienced on all sides of this issue, and his text is widely used, and Ron Levy has cited him as an authority in the past. This is one of those things that's either good advice or bad advice depending on the specific facts of any situation. The problem is that in that moment, you don't know all the facts, and the "most conservative action" is to keep your mouth shut.
 
Lindberg said:
Did that course use Scott Hamilton's book as a text? Hamilton definitely makes that suggestion (with a bunch of context). He's well experienced on all sides of this issue, and his text is widely used, and Ron Levy has cited him as an authority in the past. This is one of those things that's either good advice or bad advice depending on the specific facts of any situation. The problem is that in that moment, you don't know all the facts, and the "most conservative action" is to keep your mouth shut.
Click to expand...
The highlighted part is critical. If you know you're guilty of doing what they said but think they can't prove it without your help, it's probably best to shut up and call a lawyer. Otherwise, that "cooperative, positive attitude towards compliance" can go a long way towards easing the eventual pain, and maybe convincing the Inspector that an administrative action like counseling or remedial training (rather than an enforcement action) is enough to keep you from doing it again.
 
The reason I called as requested was to actually gather info from them. Of course, they had a cross purpose, but I accomplished a little of what I set out to get. You can tell the type of situation from the questions they ask, and the ones they don't ask. Frex, they didn't ask if I had a parachute, which was an instant giveaway that they were fishing, and I wasn't biting.
 
Henning said:
The game of Life is much easier to play if you understand the basic rule, and that is treat people as you expect to be treated.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect people to confess to me if I was investigating allegations against them.
 
Ron Levy said:
The highlighted part is critical. If you know you're guilty of doing what they said but think they can't prove it without your help, it's probably best to shut up and call a lawyer. Otherwise, that "cooperative, positive attitude towards compliance" can go a long way towards easing the eventual pain, and maybe convincing the Inspector that an administrative action like counseling or remedial training (rather than an enforcement action) is enough to keep you from doing it again.
Click to expand...
You can never know which situation you're in until you call. You may not even know what they think you did. For example, the pilot in the OP might not have had any idea he landed on a taxiway. He might have thought they had him call because he stopped to call ground with his tail hanging over the hold line. Or he may think that he just skimmed the floor of a Class B and it's "no big deal," but he forgot that he also hadn't reset his altimeter in more than 100 miles and that he was really 400 feet into the B and caused an RA in an airliner.

These are just random examples. There are surely also times where someone knows exactly what he did, but has no idea of how serious an offense it is. Or, rather than getting the supervisor on a good day when he feels like forgiving, you get him the day after his wife filed for divorce when he feels like throwing books.

So if the universe loves you, or you don't care what the outcome is, or you're just so sure you know what's going to happen, by all means fess up to whatever you did. But there's at least some evidence that one poster advocating that course of action once talked himself into a 709 ride he might not have otherwise had.

IAMYL, YMMV.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wouldn't expect people to confess to me if I was investigating allegations against them.
Click to expand...

But would you cooperate with a CAPF 78?

How is talking to ATC different?

ATC is not the FSDO, and CAWG can report you to FSDO as well.

If I screw up, the right thing to do, regardless of any consequence, is to own up to it. You'll find an example in "Lessons Learned" where I busted the BUR Class C. It turns out there were no consequences, at least not yet, but there easily could have been (I got lucky and there was no traffic south of VNY). If the LA FSDO does get a bug up it's butt, I did unintentionally break a rule (14 CFR 91.123(b)) and I'm fully prepared to answer for it.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think either your facts are wrong or the FAA personnel involved violated Federal law -- and I suspect it's the former. The stale complaint rule is very hard for the FAA to get around if they clearly knew of the issue but waited three years to initiate an enforcement action -- especially if they took other non-enforcement action at the time.
Click to expand...

Genuinely curious what federal law governs the prescribed time frame between, say the informal conference and issuing an Order of Suspension?
 
Perhaps the hesitation some folks have with calling the tower stems from experiences we have had with law enforcement elsewhere. Look around, we see speed traps, red light cameras, speed cameras, tickets being issued seemingly with increasing zest for what appears to be little more reason than filling public coffers that have been laid bare from governmental waste irresponsibility or graft. It is no wonder folks do not want to cooperate. ATC by contrast has never given me any reason to feel they are out to get me.
 
MAKG1 said:
But would you cooperate with a CAPF 78?

How is talking to ATC different?

ATC is not the FSDO, and CAWG can report you to FSDO as well.

If I screw up, the right thing to do, regardless of any consequence, is to own up to it. You'll find an example in "Lessons Learned" where I busted the BUR Class C. It turns out there were no consequences, at least not yet, but there easily could have been (I got lucky and there was no traffic south of VNY). If the LA FSDO does get a bug up it's butt, I did unintentionally break a rule (14 CFR 91.123(b)) and I'm fully prepared to answer for it.
Click to expand...

I do the same as you, and it has worked well for me so far. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily valid to base one's actions on what one expects from others. I also don't consider it a moral failing if others choose to exercise their rights. For one thing, they may have reasons that don't apply to me, or are less important to me.
 
DJTorrente said:
Genuinely curious what federal law governs the prescribed time frame between, say the informal conference and issuing an Order of Suspension?
Click to expand...

The stale complaint rule is a regulation like any other CFR. It says they should bring actions within 6 months of the violation, but is pretty deferential to the FAA if they present a reason it took them so long. See 49 CFR 821.33 and this very brief summary.
 
mcmanigle said:
The stale complaint rule is a regulation like any other CFR. It says they should bring actions within 6 months of the violation, but is pretty deferential to the FAA if they present a reason it took them so long. See 49 CFR 821.33 and this very brief summary.
Click to expand...

The action was timely initiated by a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action before the unconscionable delay, so the stale complaint rule cited does not apply. The only recourse left to the airman was equitable latches.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wouldn't expect people to confess to me if I was investigating allegations against them.
Click to expand...

That depends on the intention of the investigation. If the intention is to put me in prison, I would concur. If the intention is to determine why an accident, incident, or other trasgretion took place and to rectify the cause of that failure through preferably a bit of extra training, (could be delivered right there during the investigation interview or phone call) then I don't concur because the intent of the investigation reaching it's designed conclusion serves my best interest, and believe it or not, when you first start talking to an investigator, that is their intent. If you really screwed one up and the controller is terse with you at first, remember, you likely just cost them a bunch of paperwork they don't have time or desire for. "Sorry, I screwed up" goes a long way towards changing their attitude to a more favorable one.

In most situations where no one was injured, you're likely better off taking the blame fully on your shoulders even if you are only partially at fault or have reasonable defense. They EXPECT you to screw up every now and then. If you accept responsibility rather than try to reapportion it, they are seeing what they want to see.

IIRC on my gear up thread several people thought I had screwed myself and predicted doom and gloom. NOTHING could be further from the truth of how it went down. There was no one at any time that was anything less than helpful towards me. Even though they have 30 days to do a 709 or issue a suspension, since I put my cert on deposit with them, when they couldn't manage to get my 709 done due to internal problems, they sent my cert back to me because, "It wouldn't be fair to you for me to keep your cert if I can't give you the ride. It's fully valid, we'll give you a call when we can work something out."

The reason I was treated as I was I am certain is because I closed the investigation part with my first 3 words, "I ****ed up". With that he smiled, shook my hand and said, "Thanks for being honest." After that I reviewed all the circumstances and week long chain of events that lead up to the accident with him and the NTSB investigator as the plane was being jacked up. Everything was done except the 709 ride at that point, and he said he would try to get it scheduled that week. When that proved impossible, and I would be out of country for the next 2 months, they offered, "You can put your certificate on deposit with us and when you get back we schedule it, that way there is no suspension proceeding in your record." Now I've got the inspector and his boss looking out for my best interest.

This is typical of every experience I've had with the FAA. Heck, I crashed an Ag plane and when I went in to answer my letter from counsel and I reviewed it with her explaining the weather conditions and my error in not standing my ground on not flying until the system had moved through. She asked the Safety Counselor guy there, "Wait, this was an Ag accident? Why are we here?" I told he it was because the guy they sent out was a radio guy (it was Sunday). She said "I can't make an official statement at this time, but you should be getting a letter in a couple weeks closing this with no action." R&W says there's no evidence of the accident in my file.

My years of experiences with the FAA do not indicate to me that any level of paranoia is warranted. In all that time I have heard of only a couple of true, factual, instances of inspector abuse, and they were rectified.

In all relationships you get back what you give, if your experiences with the FAA seem to be negative, you might try changing your mindset, because the other other way seems to yield pretty positive results.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The highlighted part is critical. If you know you're guilty of doing what they said but think they can't prove it without your help, it's Otherwise, that "cooperative, positive attitude towards compliance" can go a long way towards easing the eventual pain, and maybe convincing the Inspector that an administrative action like counseling or remedial training (rather than an enforcement action) is enough to keep you from doing it again.
Click to expand...

:confused: Why? What do you think will be the result if you tell them what happened and admitted your error? What do you fear they will do with that information?

Unless you have done something so egregious that a DA is going to come after you, I can't see where it's worth the money to call a lawyer. There is no one at the FAA who expects you to be perfect. As long as what happened is within the bounds of expected incidents, then it serves no function to make it worse on yourself by adding hazardous attitudes into the investigation, you're just ****ing yourself.
 
Henning said:
R&W says there's no evidence of the accident in my file.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that would beg the question "did it really happen?"

Care to share the accident report with us? Or are you trying to say that ag crashes are exempt from reporting?
 
Last edited:
DJTorrente said:
The action was timely initiated by a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action before the unconscionable delay, so the stale complaint rule cited does not apply.
Click to expand...
If you think that, you didn't read the rule carefully. Either that, or the 3-year delay was due to the respondent's actions, in which case the respondent has no complaint.
 
Henning said:
:confused: Why? What do you think will be the result if you tell them what happened and admitted your error? What do you fear they will do with that information?
Click to expand...
If they can't prove it without your help, then giving them the ammunition to sustain their complaint is downright dumb. Why take any heat at all if you can avoid it entirely? But that is a pretty unusual situation, especially since the standard of proof is so low.
 
timwinters said:
Well, I guess that would beg the question "did it really happen?"

Care to share the accident report with us? Or are you trying to say that ag crashes are exempt from reporting?
Click to expand...

No, it's in the NTSB records I think in Leland IL in a G-164.
 
I've never thought ATC was out to get me.

Until they were out to get me. It was pretty clear from the directions the questions were going, that they were going to build a case for a PD. Sadly, I didn't play along. All I want to know from anyone on the inside is whether my way of answering without offering evidence is suitable.
 
Ron Levy said:
Understood. But even if the PBOR says no adverse inference may be drawn in terms of an enforcement action, they can still treat your refusal to talk with them about it as not showing a positive attitude towards compliance, and that can turn an administrative action (like remedial training) into an enforcement action (like a suspension) even if they can't make any adverse inference from that silence during the actual enforcement action.
Click to expand...
Yes, just as the police will often treat your refusal to talk as suspicious. Depending on the circumstances, that might be their problem more than yours.

That's why a describe the decision to talk and when to talk as "nuanced" and deserving of consultation with a professional.
 
Henning said:
Do you not recognize that your attitude and actions were the root? Do you not understand that attitude is the key factor they are looking for regardless of 'call the tower' or a 709 ride? They are looking for any of the 'Hazardous personality traits' the entire time.

The game of Life is much easier to play if you understand the basic rule, and that is treat people as you expect to be treated.
Click to expand...
So what? Might not in others, but it turned out well in that case. He apparently felt the contact was becoming accusatory, made the guess that treating them in the same way he was being treated was appropriate and managed to guess correctly.

Definitely not the right solution for everyone or every situation. "Stand on your rights" and "mea culpa" are not this-or-that opposites but are the ends of a continuum. And other than personal moral judgments of the actions of others, nothing "wrong" with either end, so long as the person is willing to accept the consequences of his or her choice.

This isn't the game if life. It's the game of governmental investigation and enforcement.
 
docmirror said:
The reason I called as requested was to actually gather info from them. Of course, they had a cross purpose, but I accomplished a little of what I set out to get. You can tell the type of situation from the questions they ask, and the ones they don't ask. Frex, they didn't ask if I had a parachute, which was an instant giveaway that they were fishing, and I wasn't biting.
Click to expand...

Were you being seemingly accused of aerobatic flight in an inappropriate location?
 
It has never even occurred to me that someone might mistaken a taxiway for a runway, especially at large airports. After reading through this thread, I guess it happens more often then I could imagine. I'm scratching my head
 
TheGolfPilot said:
It has never even occurred to me that someone might mistaken a taxiway for a runway, especially at large airports. After reading through this thread, I guess it happens more often then I could imagine. I'm scratching my head
Click to expand...
It's been done more times than I have fingers and toes, and that only counts the Part 121 air carrier incidents that made the news.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's been done more times than I have fingers and toes, and that only counts the Part 121 air carrier incidents that made the news.
Click to expand...

Even managing to land at the wrong airport in an airliner or military aircraft happens a few times a decade.
 
TheGolfPilot said:
It has never even occurred to me that someone might mistaken a taxiway for a runway, especially at large airports. After reading through this thread, I guess it happens more often then I could imagine. I'm scratching my head
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way.

Someone local thought this was necessary.
 
Ron Levy said:
Good, because failure to call is taken as evidence of a noncompliant attitude, and that can turn an administrative response like counseling (which disappears from your record in two years) into an enforcement action (which stays on your record forever).
Click to expand...

I thought enforcement actions dropped from your record after 5 years.

Do they not?
 
Last edited:
FORANE said:
Perhaps the hesitation some folks have with calling the tower stems from experiences we have had with law enforcement elsewhere. Look around, we see speed traps, red light cameras, speed cameras, tickets being issued seemingly with increasing zest for what appears to be little more reason than filling public coffers that have been laid bare from governmental waste irresponsibility or graft. It is no wonder folks do not want to cooperate. ATC by contrast has never given me any reason to feel they are out to get me.
Click to expand...

^THIS^

Right on the money IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top