The FAA knows no limit to their pettiness

[Lindberg]

Does anyone else have additional facts?

There's almost always more, isn't there? Maybe the more is that someone at the FSDO had it out for this guy because he stole his girlfriend. Maybe the more is that this guy was already on thin ice because of something else. But the idea that this guy was in the FAA's good graces and went from hero to zero based solely on this event seems incredible to me. I'm not saying that couldn't happen, just it seems very unlikely.

 

[Doc Holliday]

There's almost always more, isn't there? Maybe the more is that someone at the FSDO had it out for this guy because he stole his girlfriend. Maybe the more is that this guy was already on thing ice because of something else. But the idea that this guy was in the FAA's good graces and went from hero to zero based solely on this event seems incredible to me. I'm not saying that couldn't happen, just it seems very unlikely.

Very well stated.

 

[Fly North]

https://warbirdpinups.com/

Thats my old Widgeon!

 

[CharlieD3]

I will say two things about govt bureaucracies.

1. I fear them.

2. When I have had direct dealings with them, the fear has been proven unwarranted.

And, in both cases I am speaking about the FAA and the IRS.

That said, they are Fiefdoms and there is ample opportunity for the abuse of power in them.

Sometimes, they self-correct. Others, meh.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It is not a matter of how fair or unfair an agency attempts to be. It’s a matter of fact that you have no legal recourse to ensure that they are fair to you. You do not have a presumption of innocence. You do not have the right to a trial by jury, or even an impartial judge.
You often grind this axe about how fair the Faa is, but that is irrelevant. All the things you mention are still relying on “fairness” that you have to hope for, by a bureaucrat that you can take no action against no matter the damage they do to you. If you don’t get that fairness, you have have to spend thousands to reverse even the silliest decision, and you are unable to exercise your privileges in the meanwhile.

I certainly agree that the administrative law which governs these agencies is very one-sided, favoring the agency, and probably should not be the way things are done.

But just to clear, as a citizen, not an employee or contracted person, you can take up an administrative case against an agency. And if you go through their administrative (some would say “kangaroo”) court in just the right way, preserving all the issues in just the right way, you can eventually appeal to an actual appellate court with a judge who is not employed by the agency or a similar one very favorably inclined to the agency.

That will take likely years and lots and lots of money. And in the meantime, you are living with the agencies decision.

What is the saying “justice delayed is justice denied”? It is a huge problem, in aviation and other matters dealing with our huge regulatory state.

 

[Witmo]

The San Antonio FSDO has not had a sterling reputation as far as being friendly to general aviation. That said, I have to say that my limited interface with the FSDO has generally been good. The majority of interactions I've had with them has been professional but it has not been totally so. Two trivial instances come to mind that while not earthshaking, they do show that there are individuals in the employment of the FAA that think they deserve respect by virtue of their position but need not offer respect to the general public. The first instance was my calling the FSDO to inquire what needed to be done to get an advanced ground instructor license added to my record having passed the required knowledge test(s). The FAA person who eventually answered my question thought it important to belittle my inquiry by lecturing me for a good 5 minutes over my use of the term advanced ground instructor "license" vs. advanced ground instructor "certificate." He nastily called into question my deserving the exhaulted certificate for making the inexcusable mistake of calling it a license. Certainly, he could have mentioned it in passing, but after this phone call, he colored my perception of the FSDO personnel as a bunch of douche bags with nothing better to do than quibble over insignificant terms. Full disclaimer, having made the appointment to meet someone at the FSDO to complete the process, the female FAA employee was great. She congratulated me on getting the certificate, chatted with me about flying, a subject it was obvious both of us cared about, and was extremely pleasant to deal with.

Another incident happened after a light sport aircraft suffered a takeoff accident at my home field. The inspector that came out to investigate was in the process of taking some photos of the runway skid marks where the LSA had skidded to a stop. I happened to be mowing the grass alongside the threshold and never got within 75 yards of the inspector and yet he called me over and insisted I cease all mowing because the noise was disturbing him as he was conducting his investigation. He didn't politely ask, he demanded i stop until he was completely finished not because I was in any way disturbing the site of the accident but because I was making too much racket. A polite request to take a break for the 10 minutes was out of the question when he could simply order compliance with his demands as he was from the all powerful FAA. I know of several more serious examples of imperious behavior by employess of the San Antonio FSDO but they would be second hand accounts and I just wanted to offer my personal experience. Of course, there are probably many more examples of good interactions with FSDO personnel but all it takes is a few bad ones to color the bunch.

 

[Bell206]

I always get a kick out of these types of discussions and as usual most don’t understand how the system works--just like all STCs need a 337 or only certified parts can be used on aircraft. Whats even more interesting is how everyone gets wound up with only half the story or just plain BS. For one, a designee can’t get fired from the FAA because they were never hired. And being a designee rep is a procedural privilege not a certificate or authorization which is a huge difference. You serve at the sole discretion of the FAA, no guarantees. Period. I’ve been through the designee process… anybody here done it? If you did you’d know how much of this discussion and others are a bit short on substance and highly subjective to personal opinion/but-hurt vs actual knowledge of how things work.

As to there’s no recourse to FAA enforcement actions, that’s pure BS. Have supported a number of enforcement actions directly/indirectly with several up to the NTSB Admin level. There are various routes to take depending on what transpired. And it’s the FAA that has the burden of proof. Are there rogue ASIs? Sure. Is the system perfect? Never. But show one industry or public entity that doesn’t have individuals who over step their bounds or procedural issues. However, regardless what did happen there is always a path to follow.

What is interesting in my experience, you’ll find that a lot people involved in these type discussions at this level have never been personally involved in the enforcement/designee process and only work on hearsay/myth. And for some of these people it becomes further obvious they never have actually met/talked to an ASI outside a fly-in/seminar or been beyond the lobby at the FSDO. I guess this is your classic ignorance is bliss scenario. But the funniest part of these discussions is the people who get wound up the tightest are usually the same people who can’t even follow the simplest of rules like make a logbook entry for work they performed then post on a public forum how they’re such the badazz FAA outlaw by not making the entry. But it does make for some good Sunday entertainment.

 

[kayoh190]

The San Antonio FSDO has not had a sterling reputation as far as being friendly to general aviation.

Is Frank Fortmann still there? He and the SAT FSDO definitely had that reputation back in the early 2000s. To be fair, my only direct experience with SAT was for my MEI checkride, and my examiner was amazing. It was a long ride - I arrived around sunrise and wasn't signed off until sunset. But she was great - one of the few that had an LOA to perform a checkride in a Grumman Cougar.

Anyway, not to discount anyone else's experiences with the FAA, but my various encounters over the years have been positive. Not just my MEI checkride, but during my 135 days I've had numerous 299 rides from a few different POIs, and later spent time working closely with our FSDO as the chief pilot. It's the government, sure, but I never experienced them to be the boogyman some folks make them out to be.

 

[midwestpa24]

I deal with the FAA lot in my profession as a lot of you may. The FAA as an organization is usually ok to deal with. Are there some bad apples among them? You bet! Just like there are in any large group, whether FAA, police, priests, you name it.

Generally their behavior earns them a reputation, and they get promoted to a position better suited for them, or relocated to another region.

 

[donjohnston]

Take the Bob Hoover story as an example. Most people citing that reference often know very little of the actual story but rely on internet accounts by others who also know little about it. Was what happened right? Obviously not, but in the many years since then much has been done to make sure such a thing doesn't happen again.

Please elaborate as to what has been done to prevent such a thing from happening again.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Please elaborate as to what has been done to prevent such a thing from happening again.

The enforcement process has been rewritten (Order 2150.3C is the latest), FAA Order 8900.1 was extensively rewritten with regards to the enforcement process, the FAA has produced the Pilots Bill of Rights and has implemented the Compliance Philosophy, as well as Inspector training has been rewritten as well. The agency has also placed much greater emphasis on Inspectors with regards to remain in the scope of their employment, which is detailed in those orders listed above.

There’s also several other smaller changes that have been made as well.

 

[Fly North]

Doc, do you work for the FAA or are you in any connected to the FAA or any other government agency?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Doc, do you work for the FAA or are you in any connected to the FAA or any other government agency?

All of those orders are online and accessible for anyone to read.

Also the many changes to the FAA have been well documented over the years and easily searchable.

 

[Dave Theisen]

^^^ It was a simple question which you didn’t answer.

 

[Doc Holliday]

^^^ It was a simple question which you didn’t answer.

I assumed he wanted to know where that information came from. It’s all public source and much of it has been discussed in various articles.

As for me? Former dentist, now consider myself a “sportin’ man”.

Look me up for a game of faro sometime.

 

[NHWannabe]

Yes. And if they unfairly decide to remove your privilege it’s gone immediately, until YOU figure out how and pay to get it corrected. There is no due process. There is no presumption of innocence. If the person that made the incorrect ruling did it out of malice, or evil intent, there is exactly nothing you can do about it.

In addition, one does not need personal experience to understand the rules. They are well documented.

You’re argument is that it’s awesome to be ruled by a tyrant as long as you’ve never personally met someone that’s been treated unfairly.

Or that this tyrant isn't as bad as tyrants in other countries.

 

[Fly North]

I assumed he wanted to know where that information came from. It’s all public source and much of it has been discussed in various articles.

As for me? Former dentist, now consider myself a “sportin’ man”.

Look me up for a game of faro sometime.

No wasn't interested in where to find the information, I already know how to do that. I was wondering about you and thought it would be best to go straight to the source and ask you directly.

 

[CharlieD3]

I participated in a discussion elsewhere in which the first respondent to the OP (who was questioning as to whether it was a good idea to fly VFR at night) stated that most other countries require that night operations be conducted IFR and that to do otherwise was stupid and dangerous.

I disagreed as did many others.

While others touted the practical aspects of VFR at night (ease of navigation, the more pronounced ability to see and avoid other traffic, and the fact that the outlines of cities are much easier to compare to sectional depictions, too), I opted for the libertarian/patriotic view....

This is 'Merica, we INVENTED flying (at least commercializing it) and all other countries require their controllers and pilots to speak 'Merican, hence they should follow our lead, and quit making rules to further their ability to shackle their people.

Point being: Yes the FAA is a Fiefdom, but as of yet, they aren't as draconian as they could be... And we do (in GA) have some advocating FOR us... AOPA, EAA, GA caucuses in House and Senate, etc....

God bless 'Merica!

Not meant to be political, but patriotic....

 

[wsuffa]

We don't have all the pertinent facts, so it's pretty hard to second-guess the agency. That said, many years ago I worked for a government agency that had field operations as the FAA does. In fact, I worked with several FAA offices along the way. I later worked as a consultant for individuals and companies dealing with the 2 agencies.

For the most part, agency employees are good, well meaning, and are out for "compliance" (rather than punishment). There are a few that are not so good, and sometimes that is the case with an entire office: they get a reputation. For example, prior to my joining the agency in question one of the offices was known for having it's inspectors conduct "contests" as to which inspector could find more rule violations - and that meant petty stuff. Other inspectors would take the time to work with the regulated groups to understand the rules and what they meant (this group had a much higher compliance rate).

The designation of a DPE is at the discretion of the agency, whereas a pilot or CFI license has specified criteria to meet and requires more justification to deny/revoke. That means the agency can grant, deny, or revoke a DPE designation with little justification other than whatever internal rules apply. Similar things exist at other agencies, such as the Ham Radio designated exams or monitoring groups under the FCC.

And it’s the FAA that has the burden of proof.

This is not always true.

One of the advantages (from the regulatory perspective) of administrative law is that it places the burden of proof on the licensee or designee. The agency is considered to be "expert" and it's up to the licensee/designee/etc. to show that they comply with the rules. (If you can show you comply and didn't violate, then the agency ALJ generally will decide in your favor). Even going into appeals court - for an administrative manner or a privilege (and our licenses/certificates are documentation that we've met the hurdles to earn the privilege) - the appellant gets to show that they complied with the rules. The agency does have the right to change the rules, as long as they act within the guidelines/requirements of the APA.

For criminal matters, the burden of proof is on the agency. It's a criminal proceeding and generally handled by or through the US Attorney. Things such as operating without a license (that's required by law) at all may fall into that category. Intentionally jamming ATC communications or Navaids falls into the criminal category as does things like hijacking or putting passengers lives in danger.

The rest of Bell's comments are in-line, but the 'burden of proof' is not nearly so clear cut.

BTDT from the government agency side.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

How's that?

Bob Hoover.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I always get a kick out of these types of discussions and as usual most don’t understand how the system works--just like all STCs need a 337 or only certified parts can be used on aircraft. Whats even more interesting is how everyone gets wound up with only half the story or just plain BS. For one, a designee can’t get fired from the FAA because they were never hired. And being a designee rep is a procedural privilege not a certificate or authorization which is a huge difference. You serve at the sole discretion of the FAA, no guarantees. Period. I’ve been through the designee process… anybody here done it? If you did you’d know how much of this discussion and others are a bit short on substance and highly subjective to personal opinion/but-hurt vs actual knowledge of how things work.

As to there’s no recourse to FAA enforcement actions, that’s pure BS. Have supported a number of enforcement actions directly/indirectly with several up to the NTSB Admin level. There are various routes to take depending on what transpired. And it’s the FAA that has the burden of proof. Are there rogue ASIs? Sure. Is the system perfect? Never. But show one industry or public entity that doesn’t have individuals who over step their bounds or procedural issues. However, regardless what did happen there is always a path to follow.

What is interesting in my experience, you’ll find that a lot people involved in these type discussions at this level have never been personally involved in the enforcement/designee process and only work on hearsay/myth. And for some of these people it becomes further obvious they never have actually met/talked to an ASI outside a fly-in/seminar or been beyond the lobby at the FSDO. I guess this is your classic ignorance is bliss scenario. But the funniest part of these discussions is the people who get wound up the tightest are usually the same people who can’t even follow the simplest of rules like make a logbook entry for work they performed then post on a public forum how they’re such the badazz FAA outlaw by not making the entry. But it does make for some good Sunday entertainment.

Been there, done it and have the T shirt.

It’s frankly just arrogant and naive to say bad **** never happens. It’s just a nuts to say it happens all the time. I have historically always felt that people making claims of unfairness or whatever were just a bunch of whiny a-holes that only told the part of the story they wanted to share... right up until I had my personal experience. So I’ll stand by what I said way back at the beginning of this thread... based on the information available to us either one is equally probable. Crazy DPE or crazy FAA. We don’t know and likely never will know the truth.

 

[Bell206]

'burden of proof' is not nearly so clear cut.

Agree. But when we go this far down the rabbit hole on PoA I tend to keep things as simple as possible.

But FWIW… in my experience, the burden of proof usually starts with the FAA in the initial stages and especially when it involves aircraft airworthiness issues. Once the process gets more involved and the Feds have made their case the burden starts to shift back and forth between each party. But it can be tricky at times. For reference, the Order 2150 linked above basically states the same:

 

[Bell206]

It’s frankly just arrogant and naive to say bad **** never happens.

FYI: never said it “never happens.” But I believe it’s more naïve and arrogant to represent the topic of the thread as the norm instead of as the exception to the norm. But to each their own.

Been there, done it and have the T shirt.

In my experience, when individuals like yourself and others claim to have been “screwed” by the feds I always give the benefit of the doubt and always follow up with a “what happened question.” I’m always curious to know how different scenarios have played out especially since I’ve assisted in such matters for owners, pilots, and mechanics over the years.

It’s also been my experience when individuals choose not to divulge those enforcement details, no matter how sanitized, it usually falls under one of 3 reasons: the person is not the principle involved, there was a valid violation, or there was a minor infraction that escalated due to the various reasons like individual attitude. So, curious again, how did you get your FAA T-shirt?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

FYI: never said it “never happens.” But I believe it’s more naïve and arrogant to represent the topic of the thread as the norm instead of as the exception to the norm. But to each their own.

In my experience, when individuals like yourself and others claim to have been “screwed” by the feds I always give the benefit of the doubt and always follow up with a “what happened question.” I’m always curious to know how different scenarios have played out especially since I’ve assisted in such matters for owners, pilots, and mechanics over the years.

It’s also been my experience when individuals choose not to divulge those enforcement details, no matter how sanitized, it usually falls under one of 3 reasons: the person is not the principle involved, there was a valid violation, or there was a minor infraction that escalated due to the various reasons like individual attitude. So, curious again, how did you get your FAA T-shirt?

No offense intended but I will not answer that question here. I’m not trying to win an argument nor do I need anyone’s validation. You can choose to accept what I’m saying or not. It won’t change anything either way.

 

[denverpilot]

Those were all things forced by outside lobbying and celebrity events, Doc.

Cant really say FAA has made major changes in my lifetime to make hobby aviation more accessible, the legal process less unaffordable if one needs it, or anything really. Not on their own.

All forced by outside pressure, not introspection about how any of it affects a hobbyist.

The DPE thing that started the thread — before you attempted to defend writing and changing policy mandated by congress and public outrage long after it had gone too far — well, he’s a pseudo-employee and gets whatever they dole out, and I honestly don’t care about that.

I just laughed heartily that you think the recent procedure changes to treat hobbyists reasonably are something that deserves a gold star and extra credit.

LOL. No.

PBOR, BasicMed, and Compliance philosophy should have ALWAYS been the norm for hobbyists. As should a wholly different legal process for hobbyists vs professionals that doesn’t require a hobbyist end up ultimately before the NTSB. Who’s hobby puts them in front of NTSB?! LOL. Ridiculous.

These are all quite obvious to anyone who drives a car privately versus driving commercial vehicles. DOT ain’t coming for my driver’s license if I run a red light. They also don’t have any special doctors to go visit to drive the car or truck. And the locals aren’t allowed to hide evidence against me in court.

Anyway we could argue about how much regulation is applied to hobbyists, but no “A+” letter grade or participation trophies shall be handed out for treating hobby pilots reasonably after decades of lobbying for that.

Happy it’s “better” now than when I started and it’s ***in writing*** now, but FAA wasn’t interested in the slightest in making it so on their own. Not even close.

If that was the insinuation, that these common sense changes are somehow worthy of praise, nah. They were overdue to get put into writing since before I started flying. No other hobby is as obnoxiously legislated, as aviation is at the hobby level.

That enforcement should be reasonable is just a reset to where it always should have been. Zero concern of license loss at first minor infraction, just like a traffic cop.

Changing the appeals and legislative process to something less huge and more like a traffic ticket up to a point, is also in line with all other operation of motor vehicles. Plea guilty, pay a fine, insurance rates go up.

Letting people’s own Doctors evaluate their health is also reasonable at the hobby level.

All of it always was.


FAA wasn’t EVER interested until forced.

As far as @Bell206 ‘s claim that there’s always a path... sure. A path completely unaffordable for a hobbyist. I’d say roughly 2/3 of hobby aviators couldn’t even afford to retain the counsel needed to start those processes.

And there never was a real AeroMed appeals process that was cost effective at the hobby level, when it even existed.

Taken from a purely hobbyist standpoint, FAA hasn’t helped anybody in my lifetime — in writing anyway.

Individual inspectors — lots of those — were reasonable even back in the day. But that’s no reason to hand out any awards for finally writing it down to be reasonable human beings, after decades of outside pressure.

Hobbyists are rolling their eyes at you both.

Commercial? Instructors? DPEs? Different story. More responsibility, more rules. But the audience here is mostly hobby pilots. FAA hasn’t done ha k squat for hobby pilots in many decades without massive external pressure.

(With one really odd exception. Unpowered aircraft. As if someone self-certifying medical condition in a glider is any different from doing it on something powered less than 6001 lbs... never was any significant difference. Neither had a high medical accident rate ever. The glider folk still ended up at NTSB however, which is even stupider than light powered aircraft... LOL. Let alone the hot air balloonist or a toy drone pilot...)

 

[Bell206]

As far as @Bell206 ‘s claim that there’s always a path... sure. A path completely unaffordable for a hobbyist. I’d say roughly 2/3 of hobby aviators couldn’t even afford to retain the counsel needed to start those processes.

FYI: for the astute owners, pilots and mechanics the paths start at the free level. After that most paths move to the consultant level which is well within the financial ability of most "hobbyist." It's this level where most of my work is/was so I don't know where you got your information from. But if and when you need legal assistance then yes it can get expensive and starts around $10K. And in general in cases where an attorney is needed there usually is an existing violation that needs to be addressed.

 

[Country Flier]

...there usually is an existing violation that needs to be addressed.

Shouldn't that be an "alleged" violation?

 

[Bell206]

Shouldn't that be an "alleged" violation?

No. When you're working for the guy to help him get off the hook you know if its a violation or not. It's at that time he decides if he wants to bring in the big guns and fight it or cop a plea and move on.

 

[Stan Cooper]

And Stan Cooper, if I remember my stories right.

You remember correctly. My interaction is a matter of public record:



The only reason we have the current protections like notification of investigation prior to administrative or criminal action and PBOR is because pilots who have been subjected to unfair and/or illegal FAA action have taken their complaints to court.

 

[denverpilot]

FYI: for the astute owners, pilots and mechanics the paths start at the free level. After that most paths move to the consultant level which is well within the financial ability of most "hobbyist." It's this level where most of my work is/was so I don't know where you got your information from. But if and when you need legal assistance then yes it can get expensive and starts around $10K. And in general in cases where an attorney is needed there usually is an existing violation that needs to be addressed.

Agreed. It’s the rapid curve between nothing and $10K that’s far far different from all other forms of operation of personal non-commercial motor vehicles that is a problem.

I can WILLFULLY misbehave in my car, not admit it (as you put it, “have a bad attitude”), and walk into traffic court the first time without an attorney and know for a near-fact that I’m walking out with nothing more than $250 Max, out of pocket.

I’m not saying that’s good but I’m just saying to go from easy to bankrupt in hobby aviation is a much steeper slope.

I’m pretty sure automotive should be tougher and aviation more lenient, in general. But we accept cattle car plea deals for a room of 200 naughty people in autos and “come in for a really risky one-on-one interrogation where you’re not allowed to be grumpy and you’d better smile and nod” in aviation.

Neither is truly right. And I’m using a bit of hyperbole to make the point. But we do have people show up here regularly that wonder why FAA is so bothered by their second and third DUIs.

Clearly their expectations of consequences were set in a courtroom handling their nearly identical size/weight and higher accident risk ground-based motor vehicle. Didn’t even cost them $10K until the third one. LOL!

Doesn’t jive with physics or reality, but there it is. Write a couple hundred dollar check, you’ll be driving yourself home from court in most ground-based motor vehicles. You don’t even have to smile at the lowly assistant DA. Ha.

I mean, you know, don’t go taking a dump on his desk or anything, but you know you aren’t walking out of there with a need for $10K in attorney fees for even willfully running a red light as a non-commercial motor vehicle operator. Tsk tsk. No worries, all we want is your money. Your insurance company will be who really makes it hurt.

 

[Bell206]

It’s the rapid curve between nothing and $10K that’s far far different from all other forms of operation of personal non-commercial motor vehicles that is a problem.

I don't know how you define "rapid curve", but more issues get dealt with at the free to $2K range in aviation than at the upper end. From letters to FSDO/regional managers to use of the Hotline reporting handling quite a few of them. As to comparing aircraft to "personal non-commercial motor vehicles" there is zero comparison. Aircraft fall under federal jurisdiction and motor vehicles under state jurisdiction. Now if you want to compare "personal non-commercial locomotives" or certain marine vessels then you might have a legit comparison but thats outside my skill set. Regardless, until one goes through the enforcement process, whether warranted or not, it is one topic that is difficult for the masses to fully understand. Curious, how many enforcement actions have you personally been through?

 

[RyanShort1]

I really should keep my mouth shut because the FAA tends to remember things you post on the internet, but Ken isn't the first DPE to get apparently mistreated (in the eyes of those observing) by the SAT FSDO... and in fact I'm shocked he ended up on their "bad side." There were AT LEAST two previous "Good" / tough DPEs who also seemed to be victims of the politics there including one who got regularly called "pink slip ____" by those in my circles because he WAS both fair and tough at a time when almost ALL of the CFIs I knew were taking nearly ALL of their students OUT of district to avoid issues with their perception of the SAT FSDO and their expectations from their DPEs.

I'm SURE there is some internal "justification" for this, but after reading the article, I'm not shocked that it looks like the same kind of thing like most pilots could be busted for "careless and reckless" at some point in some flight if a person really wanted to dig. There also really needs to be some sort of statue of limitations on stuff with the FAA.

Which reminds me of the quote here at 24:12

Also, my experience with other FSDO's is MUCH better.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Is Frank Fortmann still there? He and the SAT FSDO definitely had that reputation.

No, he retired recently and the FAA immediately became a better organization. I have never heard anyone say anything nice about him and I won’t be the first! When I met another guy from the San Antonio FSDO who was telling us they were working on becoming the kindler, gentler FAA, the first thing I asked him was if Frank was still there. He laughed and said that was the question he gets the most.

 

[RyanShort1]

No, he retired recently and the FAA immediately became a better organization. I have never heard anyone say anything nice about him and I won’t be the first! When I met another guy from the San Antonio FSDO who was telling us they were working on becoming the kindler, gentler FAA, the first thing I asked him was if Frank was still there. He laughed and said that was the question he gets the most.

Wow. Glad to hear he retired, and I wish him the best. I don't hate the guy as a person, he was interesting enough to interact with, but as an inspector he made a lot of people unnecessarily miserable.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Wow. Glad to hear he retired, and I wish him the best. I don't hate the guy as a person, he was interesting enough to interact with, but as an inspector he made a lot of people unnecessarily miserable.

I can't say I wish him the best, but I'll try to hold back! Not a fan at all.

BTW, the rumors going around about who will be the next DPE...

 

[Lindberg]

There also really needs to be some sort of statue of limitations on stuff with the FAA.

It's six months for most things.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/821.33#

 

[PPC1052]

All of which is irrelevant as to whether or not a DPE is retained or fired if cause exists.

I think to be technically accurate, "fired" isn't the right word. A DPE is not an FAA employee. A DPE is merely an individual to whom the FAA has granted limited authority to conduct pilot examinations.

 

[PPC1052]

There is no presumption of innocence.

True. But you are not talking about a criminal proceeding. Administrative actions have very different due process requirements, and they are admittedly much less in favor of the citizen than you have a in a criminal proceeding.

 

[PPC1052]

If the person that made the incorrect ruling did it out of malice, or evil intent, there is exactly nothing you can do about it.

That is not true.

 

[Salty]

True. But you are not talking about a criminal proceeding. Administrative actions have very different due process requirements, and they are admittedly much less in favor of the citizen than you have a in a criminal proceeding.

That is my point exactly.