Whiz Quiz Comm Op?

[Cap'n Jack]

Sole proprietorship means a guy can't fly his own plane? Ooooooooooook.

Let's move the discussion to someone taking paid aerial photographs from a plane. I am under the impression that this activity requires a commercial certificate, no matter how his photography business is organized.

Edit: here's AOPA's interpretation:
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/PIC-archive/Operations/Aerial-Photography.aspx

 

[Henning]

Sole proprietorship means a guy can't fly his own plane? Ooooooooooook.

 

[poadeleted20]

Let's move the discussion to someone taking paid aerial photographs from a plane. I am under the impression that this activity requires a commercial certificate, no matter how his photography business is organized.

Edit: here's AOPA's interpretation:
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/PIC-archive/Operations/Aerial-Photography.aspx

...and here's the Chief Counsel's, which is even more significant than AOPA's.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sole proprietorship means a guy can't fly his own plane? Ooooooooooook.

Please show me where I wrote that -- oh, yeah, I didn't. OTOH, your posts make it appear to me that you think the Mangiamele interpretation does not apply to flights for businesses organized as a sole proprietorship, and that isn't in Mangiamele, either.

 

[EdFred]

Let's move the discussion to someone taking paid aerial photographs from a plane. I am under the impression that this activity requires a commercial certificate, no matter how his photography business is organized.

Edit: here's AOPA's interpretation:
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/PIC-archive/Operations/Aerial-Photography.aspx

Does the original post require than urine samples be taken from the air? You sort of need an aircraft of some sort if you are going to take pictures from the air. You don't need an aircraft to go collect urine samples. Usage of an aircraft in aerial photography is not incidental to the business, it IS the business. Traveling to pick up pee bottles can be done via bus, plane, train, automobile or horse and buggy.

If the company in the original post is a sole proprietorship just go ahead and run through how the owner is or is not getting reimbursed for the flight.

 

[Henning]

Does the original post require than urine samples be taken from the air? You sort of need an aircraft of some sort if you are going to take pictures from the air. You don't need an aircraft to go collect urine samples. Usage of an aircraft in aerial photography is not incidental to the business, it IS the business. Traveling to pick up pee bottles can be done via bus, plane, train, automobile or horse and buggy.

If the company in the original post is a sole proprietorship just go ahead and run through how the owner is or is not getting reimbursed for the flight.

Actually, that was a recent change in interpretation. It used to be if you had a photo business, you could do aerial on a PP.

 

[EdFred]

Please show me where I wrote that -- oh, yeah, I didn't. OTOH, your posts make it appear to me that you think the Mangiamele interpretation does not apply to flights for businesses organized as a sole proprietorship, and that isn't in Mangiamele, either.

Sole owner pays for (and gets reimbursed for) the plane one way or the other. And as long as the expenses match, the IRS doesn't care that the date doesn't match on the receipt, or where the receipt even came from so long as it is the same category of expense - in this case transportation. I was told this by 2 different tax attorneys at two different businesses, when I lost my receipt to turn in for travel. They said to simply put that same amount of gas in again, use that receipt and your fine. So, to satisfy the FAA that you aren't getting "reimbursed for carrying passengers for hire" because they obviously don't know what that term actually means, turn in the equal amount in autofuel and the FAA can't say squat.

As much as you want to scare everyone into it being tax fraud - it isn't.

 

[EdFred]

Actually, that was a recent change in interpretation. It used to be if you had a photo business, you could do aerial on a PP.

I know. Which I happen to agree with a aerial photo business requiring a commercial up - even though you aren't technically carrying cargo or passengers if doing it alone. To me it would be no different than pipeline or power line survey - you aren't carrying either for that op either.

 

[Henning]

I know. Which I happen to agree with a aerial photo business requiring a commercial up - even though you aren't technically carrying cargo or passengers if doing it alone. To me it would be no different than pipeline or power line survey - you aren't carrying either for that op either.

There are companies that used to (might still) hire PPs for pipeline.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Does the original post require than urine samples be taken from the air? You sort of need an aircraft of some sort if you are going to take pictures from the air. You don't need an aircraft to go collect urine samples. Usage of an aircraft in aerial photography is not incidental to the business, it IS the business. Traveling to pick up pee bottles can be done via bus, plane, train, automobile or horse and buggy.

If the company in the original post is a sole proprietorship just go ahead and run through how the owner is or is not getting reimbursed for the flight.

Unless one has a teleportation device, one needs an a aircraft to cover the distances in a timely fashion. Likewise packages could be transported by the means you mentioned, but I'm pretty sure a commercial certificate is needed to run a mini overnight delivery service between distant cities. In the Op case and is one! the airplane is required to cover the distance in such a time that allow the service to be useful.

 

[Jaybird180]

So, father son operation. Schedule a bunch of urinealisis's across the state and then fly to each airport and perform the collection.

Father and son fly in their own plane and both have a PPL. Incidental? This would not be possible by car. Well, maybe if team driving...

What do ya'll think? Legal?

Father and son fly to site. Site is responsible for obtaining paperwork and appropriate sample cups. Father and son certify the collection process and all samples, fill out all paperwork and put everything in the mail. Father and son fly to next site.

100% legal.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, that was a recent change in interpretation. It used to be if you had a photo business, you could do aerial on a PP.

Not exactly. In 1995, the Western Regional Counsel issued an interpretation saying that, but that contradicted 1987 interpretation by the Chief Counsel. In that situation, HQ trumps the Region, as discussed in the 2010 letter I linked above, and the Western Region interpretation was never valid.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sole owner pays for (and gets reimbursed for) the plane one way or the other. And as long as the expenses match, the IRS doesn't care that the date doesn't match on the receipt, or where the receipt even came from so long as it is the same category of expense - in this case transportation. I was told this by 2 different tax attorneys at two different businesses, when I lost my receipt to turn in for travel. They said to simply put that same amount of gas in again, use that receipt and your fine. So, to satisfy the FAA that you aren't getting "reimbursed for carrying passengers for hire" because they obviously don't know what that term actually means, turn in the equal amount in autofuel and the FAA can't say squat.

As much as you want to scare everyone into it being tax fraud - it isn't.

Thank you for admitting that this is flying incidental to their business, and as such, covered by the Mangiamele interpretation saying "if there's reimbursement, there's no passengers." Beyond that, if you want to lie about being reimbursed, and cook the books so it looks like you weren't, you're on your own -- and I'll bet your two tax attorneys agree with me.

 

[poadeleted20]

Father and son fly to site. Site is responsible for obtaining paperwork and appropriate sample cups. Father and son certify the collection process and all samples, fill out all paperwork and put everything in the mail. Father and son fly to next site.

100% legal.

...as long as the father isn't reimbursed for the cost of the flight, i.e., it comes out of his own pocket, not the business. You can try the monkeyshines suggested by EdFred to make it appear there's no reimbursement taking place, but I doubt your tax professional will go along with such a scheme.

 

[EdFred]

...as long as the father isn't reimbursed for the cost of the flight, i.e., it comes out of his own pocket, not the business. You can try the monkeyshines suggested by EdFred to make it appear there's no reimbursement taking place, but I doubt your tax professional will go along with such a scheme.

If you want, I can dig up the thread on flying and taxes where my position was backed up by two tax professionals, and you as per your M.O. were shown to be talking out of your ass. Not that it mattered, even when you were shown to be wrong you still wouldn't admit it. And started wriggling like a caterpillar on a hot stove top until you finally threw your typical tantrum and declared everyone else to not know what they were talking about. Since Bruce has gone on hiatus - why don't you head over to MM and give out more misinformation. You're a medical expert too aren't you? You certainly claim to be at everything else.

 

[EdFred]

Unless one has a teleportation device, one needs an a aircraft to cover the distances in a timely fashion. Likewise packages could be transported by the means you mentioned, but I'm pretty sure a commercial certificate is needed to run a mini overnight delivery service between distant cities. In the Op case and is one! the airplane is required to cover the distance in such a time that allow the service to be useful.

The aircraft is not required. It is a convenience. Just like when I have to cross Lake Michigan for business. I could take a car, spend the night, and come back, but tis quicker to fly.

 

[dtuuri]

Not exactly. In 1995, the Western Regional Counsel issued an interpretation saying that, but that contradicted 1987 interpretation by the Chief Counsel. In that situation, HQ trumps the Region, as discussed in the 2010 letter I linked above, and the Western Region interpretation was never valid.

Good example of the "Peter Principle" at work. The lower ranking interpretation is clearly the correct one. Say some guy has a photo business doing mostly weddings and such. Occasionally, he gets a request to take an aerial picture of somebody's farm. Now, if this guy has an airplane and is a private pilot he has to go hire a commercial pilot?

dtuuri

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The aircraft is not required. It is a convenience. Just like when I have to cross Lake Michigan for business. I could take a car, spend the night, and come back, but tis quicker to fly.

I think we are making different assumptions as to the nature of this fictitious business. I'm assuming the plane is being used because it allows fast turnaround between distant places, or rapid delivery of samples between distant places. In this case, the plane is a required part of the business in the same fashion as a plane is needed for overnight delivery of packages between distant places. It provides the speed required for the longer distances to operate the business.

In what I just quoted from you, I'm inclined to follow your interpretation, that the plane is incidental. If the FAA were to look at the business you describe, they may well apply the "looks like duck, quacks like a duck,..." manner of looking at the business, and they would need to "lawyer up" to prove their case.

 

[Stevel]

I think we are making different assumptions as to the nature of this fictitious business. I'm assuming the plane is being used because it allows fast turnaround between distant places, or rapid delivery of samples between distant places. In this case, the plane is a required part of the business in the same fashion as a plane is needed for overnight delivery of packages between distant places. It provides the speed required for the longer distances to operate the business.

In what I just quoted from you, I'm inclined to follow your interpretation, that the plane is incidental. If the FAA were to look at the business you describe, they may well apply the "looks like duck, quacks like a duck,..." manner of looking at the business, and they would need to "lawyer up" to prove their case.

The way that the Inspector from the Van Nuys FSDO explained it at the FAAST seminar was that the distinction is made by whether the speediness is part of the service, or part of your operational efficiency. Flying overnight packages is necessary for the speedy service needs of the customer. Flying yourself around so that you can make it to one more appointment per day is not meaningful in any way to the customer, so is incidental by that definition.

 

[denverpilot]

Not exactly. In 1995, the Western Regional Counsel issued an interpretation saying that, but that contradicted 1987 interpretation by the Chief Counsel. In that situation, HQ trumps the Region, as discussed in the 2010 letter I linked above, and the Western Region interpretation was never valid.

Meanwhile both got paid handsomely for the ineptitude. By us.

 

[EdFred]

I think we are making different assumptions as to the nature of this fictitious business. I'm assuming the plane is being used because it allows fast turnaround between distant places, or rapid delivery of samples between distant places. In this case, the plane is a required part of the business in the same fashion as a plane is needed for overnight delivery of packages between distant places. It provides the speed required for the longer distances to operate the business.

In what I just quoted from you, I'm inclined to follow your interpretation, that the plane is incidental. If the FAA were to look at the business you describe, they may well apply the "looks like duck, quacks like a duck,..." manner of looking at the business, and they would need to "lawyer up" to prove their case.

I think you and I are close to being on the same page on required vs incidental. I read the OP as they were having people pee in a cup at various locations. Since their job has nothing to do with flying, I don't see it as being required, but more of a convenience/incidental. If they are in fact delivering packages for third parties and charging for delivery, then definitely a commercial op.

Whether I am right or wrong, I use this test for when I make flights that are business related:

Convenience or other scheduling aside, could I accomplish what I am about to do in my plane with another vehicle? If yes, then the plane is incidental. If there is absolutely no way I can do what needs to be done in another manner (ignoring schedule/convenience) then I say it requires a commercial op.

I'm sure Ron is chomping at the bit to turn me into the feds, so I will let him call this in.

We offer free delivery of products we sell if the amount they are taking is worth driving it. We ship a lot of material, just because it's too disant, too big, or too heavy. But sometimes we take it ourselves and double up by making a sales call and seeing if everything is going well, etc. Sometimes I ride it over on my motorcycle (which I've done), take the company van, use my own car, or I go in the plane. I'm salary, so I get paid regardless of what I do, or how I do it, and being family business, I'm getting paid to be on call 24/7 if I am in town. The cost of the goods to the customer is always the same, whether we deliver it, or ship it. If we ship it, they pay freight. If we deliver, no charge - unless they really ****ed up - and usually we just charge to cover the cost of gas in the van.

I had a customer call me in the morning, saying "Hey, we are going to be out of product by 2nd shift tonight." They were about a three hour drive away, but it was a nice day out, and they happened to share the fence with an airport. So, rather than hop in the car and drive six plus hours round trip, I hop in the plane, and drop the stuff off. Was it required that I fly it up there? No. Did the customer request that I fly it up there? No. Is my business a delivery service? No. I could have driven it up there cheaper, but I didn't want to waste a day on the road. So I took a plane. I call it incidental to business. I turned in what it would have cost me in car gas. Cost to the customer: $0 shipping.

So there ya go Ron, call the Feds on me.

 

[poadeleted20]

In what I just quoted from you, I'm inclined to follow your interpretation, that the plane is incidental.

There was never any question that the flying is incidental to the business, and that's why a Private Pilot can do the flying. However, the carriage of passengers during flights incidental to business where a Private Pilot is flying brings in the Mangiamele interpretation prohibiting reimbursement of the pilot for his/her expenses. What EdFred is suggesting is hiding the reimbursement from the government by various accounting dodges, and that's not legal. The problem in this discussion is that Ed either is ignoring that interpretation covering flights incidental to business, or believes that you can make such reimbursement legal by playing an accounting shell game -- and he's wrong about that.

If the FAA were to look at the business you describe, they may well apply the "looks like duck, quacks like a duck,..." manner of looking at the business, and they would need to "lawyer up" to prove their case.

...and if they tried the accounting shenanigans EdFred suggests to hide the reimbursement, their duck would be roasted. This is like the old "hide the umbrella" game, in which a business traveler falsifies his second submission of a travel expense report in order to be reimbursed for an umbrella purchase during a trip and accounting originally denies that reimbursement (the punch line upon submission of the revised report being "Now find the umbrella"). It's possible you can get away with lying like this, but that doesn't change the legality of the underlying act, and definitely doesn't change the consequences if caught (termination for the umbrella-toting business traveler and suspension for the Private Pilot in EdFred's scheme).

 

[poadeleted20]

The way that the Inspector from the Van Nuys FSDO explained it at the FAAST seminar was that the distinction is made by whether the speediness is part of the service, or part of your operational efficiency. Flying overnight packages is necessary for the speedy service needs of the customer. Flying yourself around so that you can make it to one more appointment per day is not meaningful in any way to the customer, so is incidental by that definition.

That's not the best explanation I've heard of the difference in the context of the original discussion. The question is not the speed, but rather whether the use aviation is part of the fundamental nature of the business. With aerial photography, the Chief Counsel feels aviation is clearly fundamental to the nature of the business, since you can't get a ladder that tall to take those pictures. Likewise, in the business under discussion, aviation is merely incidental to the business of collecting urine samples, in that they could do the same job by ground transport. Note that in these businesses, you are using aviation merely as a business tool, not getting into the air transportation business (i.e., moving people or their property for hire).

However, when you get into the package delivery business, others are paying you to transport their property (not paying you for urinalyses regardless of how you move the specimens), and that moves it into the world of commercial air transport covered by Parts 135 and 121. IOW, while what the OP's folks are doing is legal with a Private Pilot, if they were just pilots getting paid by the urinalysis company to move the specimens around, that would fall under at least Part 135, and require all pilots involved to have Commercial Pilot certificates regardless of any other considerations.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I think you and I are close to being on the same page on required vs incidental. I read the OP as they were having people pee in a cup at various locations. Since their job has nothing to do with flying, I don't see it as being required, but more of a convenience/incidental. If they are in fact delivering packages for third parties and charging for delivery, then definitely a commercial op.

Whether I am right or wrong, I use this test for when I make flights that are business related:

Convenience or other scheduling aside, could I accomplish what I am about to do in my plane with another vehicle? If yes, then the plane is incidental. If there is absolutely no way I can do what needs to be done in another manner (ignoring schedule/convenience) then I say it requires a commercial op.

I'm sure Ron is chomping at the bit to turn me into the feds, so I will let him call this in.

We offer free delivery of products we sell if the amount they are taking is worth driving it. We ship a lot of material, just because it's too disant, too big, or too heavy. But sometimes we take it ourselves and double up by making a sales call and seeing if everything is going well, etc. Sometimes I ride it over on my motorcycle (which I've done), take the company van, use my own car, or I go in the plane. I'm salary, so I get paid regardless of what I do, or how I do it, and being family business, I'm getting paid to be on call 24/7 if I am in town. The cost of the goods to the customer is always the same, whether we deliver it, or ship it. If we ship it, they pay freight. If we deliver, no charge - unless they really ****ed up - and usually we just charge to cover the cost of gas in the van.

I had a customer call me in the morning, saying "Hey, we are going to be out of product by 2nd shift tonight." They were about a three hour drive away, but it was a nice day out, and they happened to share the fence with an airport. So, rather than hop in the car and drive six plus hours round trip, I hop in the plane, and drop the stuff off. Was it required that I fly it up there? No. Did the customer request that I fly it up there? No. Is my business a delivery service? No. I could have driven it up there cheaper, but I didn't want to waste a day on the road. So I took a plane. I call it incidental to business. I turned in what it would have cost me in car gas. Cost to the customer: $0 shipping.

So there ya go Ron, call the Feds on me.

I see nothing wrong in what you've described. Probably goes on a lot more than we realize.

 

[poadeleted20]

I see nothing wrong in what you've described.

R&W's answer completely ignores the Mangiamele interpretation. Run that past an FAA Counsel, and I'm as sure as I'm breathing that you'll get an answer EdFred doesn't like.

Probably goes on a lot more than we realize.

No argument there. Went on for years before Mangiamele, and no doubt lots of people will still do it, even though the Chief Counsel is clearly on record saying it's not legal Personally I was shocked by that interpretation, as was every aviation legal professional I've heard chime in on this issue, and AOPA is trying to get it rescinded, but for now, that's the FAA's official position on this matter.

So, if he question is whether the OP's fictional father is going to get nailed for this, I agree with RW& that the answer is "probably not". If the question is whether it's legal, the answer already given by the Chief Counsel is very simply "no".

 

[RotorAndWing]

R&W's answer completely ignores the Mangiamele interpretation. Run that past an FAA Counsel, and I'm as sure as I'm breathing that you'll get an answer EdFred doesn't like.
No argument there. Went on for years before Mangiamele, and no doubt lots of people will still do it, even though the Chief Counsel is clearly on record saying it's not legal Personally I was shocked by that interpretation, as was every aviation legal professional I've heard chime in on this issue, and AOPA is trying to get it rescinded, but for now, that's the FAA's official position on this matter.

So, if he question is whether the OP's fictional father is going to get nailed for this, I agree with RW& that the answer is "probably not". If the question is whether it's legal, the answer already given by the Chief Counsel is very simply "no".

This is something, again, no one in the FAA is going to take the time to chase down and try an enforcement based upon an "interpretation".

From an Inspector's standpoint is he "holding out" transportation? No.

He's flying incidental to his business, not advertising flights as charter or accepting passengers and /or cargo for pay.

Again, this whole scenario is something that if an Inspector went to his FLM and wanted to pursue this (EIR) he would get an answer of "no" and probably be told be doesn't have enough "R" items in his work plan.

 

[poadeleted20]

Again, this whole scenario is something that if an Inspector went to his FLM and wanted to pursue this (EIR) he would get an answer of "no" and probably be told be doesn't have enough "R" items in his work plan.

...and then go back to the pilot involved and tell him/her "I didn't see this, and I don't want to see it again," as Martha Lunken once told a friend of mine.

But that still doesn't change the legality.

And I still really wish Mangiamele had never written to the Chief Counsel, as nobody would ever have cared if he hadn't.

 

[RotorAndWing]

...and then go back to the pilot involved and tell him/her "I didn't see this, and I don't want to see it again," as Martha Lunken once told a friend of mine.

But that still doesn't change the legality.

Whatever. I'm not going to tell him "I don't want to see this again" if I don't see anything wrong in the first place.

This is classic Don Quixote tilting at the windmills.

 

[RotorAndWing]

And I still really wish Mangiamele had never written to the Chief Counsel, as nobody would ever have cared if he hadn't.

But you have so many that want so bad to have their name on a CC response letter. As stated previously I'm sure the CC office deplores the Internet and aviation forums.

 

[EdFred]

...and if they tried the accounting shenanigans EdFred suggests to hide the reimbursement, their duck would be roasted. This is like the old "hide the umbrella" game, in which a business traveler falsifies his second submission of a travel expense report in order to be reimbursed for an umbrella purchase during a trip and accounting originally denies that reimbursement (the punch line upon submission of the revised report being "Now find the umbrella"). It's possible you can get away with lying like this, but that doesn't change the legality of the underlying act, and definitely doesn't change the consequences if caught (termination for the umbrella-toting business traveler and suspension for the Private Pilot in EdFred's scheme).

Except that's not what's going on. You are making up scenarios that I am not presenting.

 

[poadeleted20]

Whatever. I'm not going to tell him "I don't want to see this again" if I don't see anything wrong in the first place.

It's worth noting that as far as enforcement actions are concerned, unless you do something in such a big way that it cannot be ignored (like something that makes headlines in the Washington Post), nothing goes to the Regional Counsel unless an Inspector feels it should, and nothing goes to the Chief Counsel unless a Regional Counsel feels it should. No doubt many Inspectors would feel the same as R&W on this issue, and that reduces even further the chances of the fictional father in this scenario actually getting nailed by the FAA. But that is still not a guarantee of safety from an enforcement action if the wrong Inspector or RC gets involved.

This is classic Don Quixote tilting at the windmills.

I didn't build the windmill, only quoted the Chief Counsel's interpretation of the rule covering it when asked. OTOH, if you're talking about arguing with EdFred, then yes, I think you may be right.

 

[poadeleted20]

Except that's not what's going on. You are making up scenarios that I am not presenting.

You were suggesting increasing the proprietor's draw rather than writing it as a business expense to cover the flight cost. Ask your tax attorney what happens when you do that (I'll give you a hint -- personal income taxes payable at the marginal rate as well as taxation of the original revenue covering the cost of the flight on the business' taxes). That double taxation is going to cost more than doing it right (getting half legally via the son/passenger and eating the other half) would cost.

 

[EdFred]

You were suggesting increasing the proprietor's draw rather than writing it as a business expense to cover the flight cost. Ask your tax attorney what happens when you do that (I'll give you a hint -- personal income taxes payable at the marginal rate as well as taxation of the original revenue covering the cost of the flight on the business' taxes). That double taxation is going to cost more than doing it right (getting half legally via the son/passenger and eating the other half) would cost.

No, that's not what I was suggesting at all. Someone else mentioned the bump in pay. I said nothing of the sort.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No doubt many Inspectors would feel the same as R&W on this issue, and that reduces even further the chances of the fictional father in this scenario actually getting nailed by the FAA. But that is still not a guarantee of safety from an enforcement action if the wrong Inspector or RC gets involved.

Time for a reality check.

Let's assume for a moment that an Inspector goes after the OP scenario. Once he has his facts he goes and meets with the FLM (Front Line Manager) or even the Office Manager. He presents his evidence and request to open an EIR (Enforcement Investigative Report). To do this his supervisor (FLM or OM) has to open an EIR file and assign it a number (national database). Now the genie is out of the bottle because once this is opened you can't simply close it.

The supervisors are on what's called "Core Comp" pay which is performance based. Each year they are reviewed by region and given pay increases based upon their job proficiency. Mr.OM knows that if he clutters his "dashboard" (computer based program that tracks all office activity) with needless BS it will now get questioned his judgement and ability to run an office.

So either supervisor has zero incentive to go tilting at windmills, especially those that there is next to zero chance of getting it to the Regional Counsels office. Also the last thing they want to do is open an EIR and put this turd on the RC desk only to have him kick it back. If it does get kicked back now the supervisors have to figure a way to close this without looking like idiots.

Let's also look at the Regional Counsel and his take on this. He already is short staffed and has more in his "in" box than his "out" box. No way is he gonna put some turd like this on his docket since his chance of successfully completing this is about nil. He has bigger fish to fry and chasing some guy on a frivolous violation ain't gonna cut it. And, just like his supervisor friends at the FSDO, he's core comp pay as well. Think he wants the Regional Manager to see him wasting time chasing something like this?

Something like this doesn't even warrant a SNAAP (Streamlined No Action and Administrative Action Process) which is essentially a warning letter generated from the office, kinda "EIR Light".

Now lets talk about Inspectors and Chief Counsel letters and "interpretations".

Inspectors are not expected to follow and study all of these Chief Counsel letters. The only time this gets brought up is during STRING Training at the Academy in a course called "Enforcement and Compliance" (which is taught by various FAA Attorneys). They show you the website and how to access it, bring up a few interesting cases and that's it. FSIMS (the version Inspectors use) has the links and access.

The Inspector's job in an enforcement is to be an Investigator, to gather information and facts, write an EIR (which is lengthy and detailed) and have the office submit to the Region Counselor. If in Part B (Summary of Facts) of the EIR the Inspector starting citing Chief Counsel letters or "case law" it would immediately get removed by the supervisor as not being relative. Same goes with Part D of the EIR (Facts and Analysis), the Inspector cannot start citing CC letters.

Inspectors are not attorneys and are not expected to act as such. Never, ever have I participated in nor do I know any office that gathers Inspectors in the conference room to have discussions of the latest Chief Counsel letters, it simply doesn't happen. I cannot imagine an Inspector going into the OM's office and saying "Sir this pilot is operating against the Mangiamele letter and I want to seek an enforcement against him!"

Like I said earlier, do something as dumb as that and you'll find more "R" items added to their work program as they obviously got way too much time on their hands.

I didn't build the windmill, only quoted the Chief Counsel's interpretation of the rule covering it when asked. OTOH, if you're talking about arguing with EdFred, then yes, I think you may be right.

No argument with Ed as I agree with him.

You didn't build the windmill, but as a Don Quixote you certainly take aim at them.