Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by SixPapaCharlie, Feb 14, 2020.
I was a subscriber in the '70s...
...and call the FSDO.
I might be late to the party here, but a couple thoughts:
1) At various times in the last several decades FAA has had to deal with various test cheating scandals. The details varied, but the FAA was reminded through various channels that tight oversight of knowledge test centers is important. The FAA makes it clear that bad things happen if they are aware of malfeasance and don’t report it. There’s a reason that knowledge test centers are so paranoid about following the rules, checking IDs, doing everything by the book.
2) Investigation if cheating will involve both the FSDO and the national program office (AFS-630). While it might seem obvious on the surface that it’s a joke, they have no choice but to investigate. They’ll also look in SPAS and see Bryan’s last social medial incident. Point of the matter, this seemingly insignificant thing is causing a lot of work for people who have plenty of other things on their plate. Just like when one of your employees does something stupid and you have to drop what you’re doing to deal with it, they’ll have do what they need to do to resolve the issue. If I was that FSDO and found out that I get to spend a couple hours staring at a grainy video of Bryan sitting in front of a computer, I wouldn’t find the joke quite as funny, particularly if this wasn’t the first time. I suspect some “Social media remedial training” is in order.
3) it’s not a POA thread without some quoted FAA guidance, so here it goes, from FAA Order 8080.6, guidance for Knowledge Testing Centers:
8. Applicant Misconduct During Testing.
a. Reporting to the ODA Administrator. Testing center personnel must report all violent, disruptive, or abusive acts, including incidents or allegations of cheating, to their ODA administrator. The ODA administrator must immediately contact AFS-630. AFS-630 will immediately notify the jurisdictional Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or International Field Office (IFO). (Refer to 14 CFR part 65, § 65.18.)
Note: Reports of cheating involving testing center personnel may result in the immediate suspension of all testing privileges in accordance with the current edition of FAA Order 8100.15, Organization Designation Authorization Procedures. Confirmed cases may result in the permanent shutdown of that testing center. In addition, appropriate enforcement action may be taken against testing center personnel or any applicant that might be involved.
b. Cheating. If an applicant appears to be cheating, the unit member must immediately discontinue the test and escort the applicant from the area to avoid disturbing others who may be taking tests. The unit member must collect the applicant’s authorization, all test materials, including supplement book(s), and advise the applicant that further testing may continue only after the FAA completes an investigation.
(1) The unit member must immediately notify the ODA administrator and the jurisdictional FSDO of the alleged cheating incident. The unit member must retain any evidence related to the cheating incident in a secured area until receipt of further instructions.
(2) The ODA administrator must immediately notify AFS-630.
(3) AFS-630 must notify the jurisdictional FSDO or IFO of the known facts relating to the incident.
(4) The FSDO or IFO must contact the jurisdictional FAA Servicing Security Element (SSE) to coordinate an investigation to be conducted in accordance with the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program.
(5) AFS-630, the FSDO, or the IFO may recommend the applicant be placed on test registration hold until such time that the investigation is concluded. The registration hold will be coordinated by or through AFS-630.
(6) Upon completion of the FSDO or IFO and SSE investigation, the FSDO or IFO must provide written notification of the results to AFS-630, including any recommendation to put the applicant on extended test registration hold.
(7) If the charge of cheating is judged in favor of the applicant, AFS-630 will make arrangements to administer a new test.
Old guys got a whoopin' from their old man for for doing stuff like this back in the day.
Young guys get a time out and coddled by mommy.
Yeah. For the moron that reported a joke. LOL.
You know what though? I’ve seen the error in my ways.
I think we should all panic over everything we see online and report all of it to authorities.
That’ll make the workload really heavy and equal amongst all inspectors so no one inspector feels left out. And then nobody on the internet will make up retaliation stories about a single one going after someone, because we will all have open cases and their desks will he piled high.
Every single “successful aviation business” should thank this genius at American Flyers for making the proper tactic for online businesses who deal with pilots and pilot training. Report everyone! It’s the only fair thing to do!
After all of that paperwork is done, then we can look at things like how many pilots died after training with each organization. Wouldn’t want to rush things.
Especially with people out there who might get one question right (but most likely wrong) from a joke post about a written test.
You know? Those written tests most pilots here tell students not to worry about and to just use Sheppard and memorize, they’ll learn it all better later with that test behind them, anyway?
C’mon POA. Tell me every thread on written tests isn’t full of recommendations to use the cheaters at Sheppard... let’s hear it! Hahaha.
* I heartily endorse the cheaters at Sheppard if you are going to learn your chit anyway.
Public record. Call the FSDO! LOL.
Wow. You take a few days away and wham 8 pages of posting. For what its worth (at best very little) what I see is an ill received joke. @SixPapaCharlie does a great job of mixing two things aviation and comedy. That can be very entertaining... we all have enjoyed this. sometimes the comedy comes first sometimes the aviation comes first. For comedians-not all jokes are winners and some comedians have definitely taken it too far-either bad timing, just too edgy, or purely not funny. I think he does a great job of deciding when to don the comedy hat vs the aviator hat. Perhaps this time when the aviator hat should have been firmly in place, it overwhelmed by the opportunity to wear the comedian hat.
life is a journey. We live and learn-and laugh on the way hopefully.
So you’re saying you want to spank Bryan-y?
Can he film for his next video, Boomers Gone Wild?
Stock up on Ensure. Maybe we’d all like a good spanking.
Feature length film:
50 Shades of Internet Seriousness
Subtitle: Call the cops! Someone made a joke online!
Paddle me big boy. The internet is my playground. Not reality. Shane on me.
In all seriousness though, being the consummate IT pro that I am...
I took the liberty of labeling the American Flyers server room network rack just in case someone there feels threatened by anything else on social media.
This should help them make good decisions about their internet use in the future. LOL.
* Nah. I actually got the photo from a private IT social media group where we make fun of computer illiterate idiots who can’t figure out things like social media. We keep it private so we don’t hurt anybody’s little feeewings.
Everybody knows the real purpose of the internet is jokes and cat memes... not getting your panties in a wad about someone making fun of a flight school’s little side hustle pimping written tests in a back corner closet with two ancient PCs and a broken camera next to the new one, they couldn’t even be bothered to take down. LOL.
Oh that’s mean. I’m sure the place looks as spiffy as their ads in Flying and everyone they ever trained came out with the skills of Bob Hoover and hit the jackpot of that airline job they promise if you pay up front in cash. All those shiny uniformed young faces with lots of epaulets.
Their online business persona is nothing but truth and light. I’m sure it’s all true.
Wait a minute? You mean to tell me businesses can lie online about stuff as long as they make it look good, but we can’t tag them when we are lying or they’ll call the cops on us? Surely you jest!
My mommy merely raised an eyebrow and we all jumped,
Depending on your definition, "Old guys" would either be today's parents or the ones that raised them. Even if it was a thing, it wouldn't be my generation's fault.
When I was a kid, I didn't have time out, I had black out.
You have a whole group dedicated to making fun of people? Classy.
Has @SixPapaCharlie resolved the situation?
Or was it another joke, this time on us.
See how many pages it can go in a short period of time...
Like that will work. They'll either pull resources from things like special issuance medicals or just shut things down for GA. Think of the benefit - they can put more inspectors on Boeing and the airlines. And no pesky FLIBs taking up the airspace. Less need for that 978 ABSB ground resource, either, so they can turn that into a surveillance system for drones. Win! Win! Win!
You forgot pron. if you're talking grainy video made with some cheap camera in the closet, gotta include pron.
which situation, doing something really, really, r e a l l y stupid (so stupid I feel bad pointing out how stupid it was), or the false cheating accusation?
@SixPapaCharlie I am a bit like you in that I find the humor in just about everything. Sarcasm comes as naturally to me as breathing. A quick wit and comments have gotten me in a ton of trouble over the years. The hardest thing to do is to learn appropriate delivery. The problem I see with this particular "joke" was you did put the testing facility in a bad position. Not everyone looks at time stamps or dates. How many people have resurrected a long dead thread because they googled a topic and never checked the date.
It is funny until it isn't. Many will get the jokes some will not. In all cases knowing your audience is key when everyone on the internet is your audience you are bound to rub some people the wrong way. In this case you called out their facility by name and date stamp or not appeared to be cheating. While they have said otherwise I think protecting the integrity of their business was probably a reasonable response in this case.
I have learned to follow what the good book says in Proverbs 21:23 (My paraphrase): Keep your mouth shut and you will stay out of trouble.
Sometimes being seen as the funny guy isn't worth the fall out.
The latter, being the point of topic.
Was the investigation publicly announced by the testing facility? I'm beginning to think we've been had by withaY.
Sounds a bit more involved than just 'ah, look at the timestamp and remove the hold'.
It's not like Brian caused hundreds of fraudulent A&P candidates to pass or something....
Can't because of federal preemption.
Why would they do that? If they think he was cheating, they will just revoke all of his certificates without any further digging.
I am curious as to what the basis is for this assertion.
Comes from multiple sources who’ve discussed a case where a pilot has uploaded numerous videos to YT showing possibly illegal activity.
FAA needs witnesses. YT videos by themselves are not usable by them to start an investigation because legally they’re hearsay.
Doesn’t mean they can’t go find witnesses of something, just means the internet data itself is useless. Because it’s the internet and completely untrusted.
Cases have been investigated from witnesses to YT video events. It’s not a Get out of Jail Free card.
In this case it won’t matter. Bryan-y is likely to simply fess up to posting a joke, thus providing evidence...
... as well as the testimony of the written test pimp at the flight school who’s wanting to punish his test hoe.
Charges will include:
Grand Theft Written Question Answer (innocent)
Having A Sense of Humor Near An Azz-Hat (guilty)
Doing Stuff on the Internet (guilty)
Not Providing Butthurt Ointment (unknown but I suspect Bryan-y keeps some in his flight bag for idiots)
Once at an 'administrative retreat' we all had to share something no one else would know about us, as an ice breaker. Wrote them down anonymously and then someone read them.
First one read by the facilitator: "I dreamed I pooped a fish".
After the roar of laughter died down, we promptly set out to find the dreamer...and did so.
A couple days later back at the facility we had a Tornado drill. The drill coordinators rushed us to our designated safe area: the basement restrooms.. at random.
I ended up in the ladies by chance.
Upon leaving, I see the girl who had the dream, and promptly yelled across the crowd..."hey, the girls restroom smells like fish!"
It was funny to me, and some others.
A couple of ladies who weren't at the retreat failed to see the humor, and I was explaining to H.R. shortly after.
@SixPapaCharlie .. you are not alone...
Hearsay is only an objection in a court of law. Nothing about the hearsay rule precludes using hearsay in an administrative investigation, or as a basis to bring administrative action against someone. And further, a statement by the opposing party is excluded from the definition of hearsay. So, Byran’s Facebook post wouldn’t meet the definition of hearsay.
The problem for AF is that, while this clearly was a post in jest, the FAA’s zero tolerance police requires them to accurately predict whether the FAA will come to the same conclusion. Anyone have total confidence that the FAA would use common sense in evaluating the post?
Nah we also make fun of the industry, ourselves, politics, vendors... it’s called banter. You should look it up.
But yes. Last night there was a thread about a Mac user who couldn’t find the two giant thumbscrews on the back of their Mac Pro.
Other fun this week has been the user who threatened to have an IT tech fired for a bug in Microsoft Office and went on an e-mail tirade to their CEO. They also stomped around the office screaming that IT had to “make sure this can never happen again”. Our group comments came out about 90% that taking away her computer would assure the outcome she wanted. LOL!
Corporate computer support quite often consists of putting paper in the printer for people or asking them if their computer is turned on. It’s very worthy of making fun of.
We’d all love it if companies gave basic tests on this sort of thing before hiring someone to work at a computer, or formally trained them. Never going to happen at the low end worker level. Hell, doesn’t happen at the executive level. Who am I kidding?
That’s not new either. My first “real” tech job was resetting dumb terminals in a call center. Literally turning them off and back on fixed the problem (caused, I later learned, by a poor engineering design of the serial maxes that the head engineer chose).
But the reason doesn’t matter. I just walked to them and restarted them as needed.
Even later, I learned a power supply design bug in the Wyse terminals meant that if you pressed more than about ten keys simultaneously, the terminal would sense the keyboard voltage drop and reboot.
So my new way to restart terminals became to walk up to them and smash a hand on the keyboard.
I managed to teach two of the brighter supervisors how to do it, too. Came in handy having helpers if I was away for lunch.
LOL. Yeah. We definitely make fun of computer users who really shouldn’t have jobs using them.
We also help IT kids stuck in hellish companies that do insane things like tell them to document a 500 user network with no logins to anything.
“Tell them you can have that done in a week, tops... if you have proper system access... or tell them a month their way. They’re idiots.”
And of course the other stuff we all chuckle at... like governments lying about what certain software even does to “warn” parents their kids “might be evil hackerzzzz!”
Yes. This is a real government pamphlet — made by an utter moron... shared to the group.
We had fun with that one. Ripped it to shreds and laughed heartily at the comments.
Don’t worry. We won’t make fun of you unless you’re regularly plugging your space heater into the overloaded power strip under your desk and asking us to fix your computer that doesn’t have power after you blew the breaker for the tenth time.
Remember the high school kid who had his laptop confiscated because he was dealing with "PHP"?
Understood. Just a theory that has floated for years about why inspectors say they can’t act on YT video alone. That’s solid. The reasoning has never been published.
FAA doesn’t have any such police, or policy which is what I assume you meant to type. Nor do they care about Facebook posts.
There’s literally a camera in the place and it’s the only reason the place exists. Otherwise we’d just take the test at home.
(Which honestly would be fine. Anyone looking things up during the written isn’t going to pass a practical. As multiple people here have said before, it’s a formality and not any indication of knowing the material in the era of Sheppard. People often just drill and kill. And apparently break the law and share question changes with Sheppard, even after the pool went unpublished. Hmmm. A closed book written doesn’t even mean you cracked a book these days.)
Remember the only difference between Bryan’s joke and a student question about a SINGLE question here... was adding “... here comes the proctor!” Clearly a joke.
You can’t pass the test by cheating on one question and the proctor knows they were either monitoring or not.
AND they have access to the video.
There’s literally no reason to call anybody.
Proctor: I was watching him the entire time like I’m supposed to do.
Boss: Okay let’s look at the video to make sure.
Proctor and Boss realize slowly due to lack of brain cells that it’s a joke. They hit delete on the comment and voila... Done.
In the extremely unlikely event that FAA even saw it, they’re generally smarter than AF staff and chuckle. Then they see the comment gets deleted.
“Looks like those idiots didn’t like Bryan’s joke. Probably good they deleted it. Some idiot might think the proctor wasn’t monitoring. Okay....Where are we going for lunch?”
LOL. Funny you should mention that...
Posted last week to the same group...
There’s only 20,000 terrible horrible evil members. We get a lot of good stuff.
Guess he's bored ...
As a small business owner, I wouldn't be too thrilled with a joke like this either that might hurt my business or cause the FAA to close it. My family and my employee families (8 of them) depend on this income. Brian trying to be "funny", wasn't in this situation. I doubt the FAA will be too thrilled after the previous Las Vegas DPE issues either. Lay back a bit and don't seek attention non-stop ... your Youtube is paying the plane and hangar as you said ... why put that at risk?
Correct. I meant policy. My iphone changed it. But your are mistaken that they don't have a zero tolerance policy to cheating. As Brad posted above:
"Reporting to the ODA Administrator. Testing center personnel must report all violent, disruptive, or abusive acts, including incidents or allegations of cheating, to their ODA administrator."
Doesn't matter if there was actual cheating or not. It's for the FAA to investigate whether the cheating actually occurred. The question then that AF faces is, if they conclude this doesn't rise to the level of an "allegation" of cheating, would the FAA agree?
Uh-oh, apparently I house a 12 year old criminal mastermind in my home. I probably should give him up to the 'National Crime Agency'. Before I do that, I'll have him finish a workstation build that includes VMware and a few virtuals to do different things.
Someone joking about the proctor coming is NOT an “allegation of cheating”. An allegation has to come from someone. The idiot reading the post made the allegation.
And he admitted he made that allegation because he wanted to “punish” Bryan.
Because that’s what you want from a vendor. A dipweed who wants to punish customers for joking near him.
A vendor too stupid to look at their own video.
Usually followed with....''wait 'til your father gets home''...
That one sentence was enough to change our ways immediately...
You keep missing my point. You and I may agree that it's not reasonable to infer any possibility of cheating. Are you certain the FAA will? Would you bet your certification on the FAA agreeing?
This is the same FSDO that felt it had to investigate Bryan because of the facebook post about providing instruction for hire. If they felt that it had to be investigated, do you really think they would give the test facility a pass for not reporting this post?