Your thoughts - Surrender my certificate for 90 days?

[midlifeflyer]

Im sorry I did not ready the entire thread and agree that any chance to reverse this is probably over. I have heard (biz partner used to dable in aviation law ) that if you are willing to admit some guilt in the beginning process w/FAA a 90 can become a 30-day susp or a 709 ride fast. with legal help...of course this was often with regard to ag pilots spraying people by accident...but none the less admiting guilt should count for something if you are willing and honest with yourself

Admissions at the beginning can sometimes help. That depends on lots of factors. The two opposing things we hear all the time are (a) admit nothing, not even who you are and that you were in the airplane, and (b) confess. Where a particular case falls is somewhere in the twists and turns between. Often navigating those twists and turns is what legal representation is all about.

 

[flyersfan31]

Good grief -- the OP asked for / requested / solicited opinions.

The OP provided enough relevant documentation (including the court's response) so that anyone at a seventh-grade reading level could come to a conclusion.

The Jr/Sr gambit was just that -- a procedural sleight of hand which was prefunctorily dismissed.

The "Where's the PIC?" maneuver was rejected -- and rightly so. The CFI was providing instruction, the CFI called the number, the CFI identified himself.

He tried, he lost.

He wants an opinion? He's got several: Take yer lumps and move along.

But I'm thinking that's not what he wants to hear, and so we'll return you to your regularly scheduled endless hand wringing.

That pretty much sums it up.

Maybe he was looking for sympathy. Me? Whenever I'm within Phoenix missile range of the SFRA/ADIZ, I check, double check, then check everything again. And I don't even have a CFI certificate.

 

[Ted]

Maybe he was looking for sympathy. Me? Whenever I'm within Phoenix missile range of the SFRA/ADIZ, I check, double check, then check everything again. And I don't even have a CFI certificate.

It seems to me that he was looking for sympathy, which I'm sure he's realized there isn't a lot of in this case.

I'm with Henning - man up and get it over with.

 

[John Collins]

I have not followed this due to general lack of interest. However, the conclusion that the CFI, because he is giving instruction, is always the pilot in command seems weak in my opinion. A CFI is not required to have a current medical and can provide instruction to a pilot who is qualified as the pilot in command and acting as the pilot in command. So, to some degree, the CFI as pilot in command rests partly on the status of his medical.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have not followed this due to general lack of interest. However, the conclusion that the CFI, because he is giving instruction, is always the pilot in command seems weak in my opinion.

Problem is, weak or not, it's backed up by NTSB precedent. It never bothered me too much because, medical or not, as I think I said earlier in the thread (or in abother one), the rule could as easily have been that there are certain PIC-equivallent responsibilities a CFI has whether or not technically pilot in command.

 

[BenZwebner]

I am a CFI and I fly within the DC SFRA, out of KGAI.

I have had my fair share of scrapes with the SFRA but here is a small story of my most recent and hopefully my last...

I was about to go for my 5th flight that day. It was a LOOOONG day. 3 lessons, an Intro and then this lesson.

She was on her second lesson and I was very tired. I just stepped off of a plane and into the next (preflight inlcuded, and I filed a flight plan of course).

We start the engine and taxi out to the runway. We do the run up and pre take off checks and we depart. On the crosswind leg I say:
"Ok, now we are going to contact Potomac Approach on..."

I didnt have a frequency. I started to think about the bum clearance guy who didnt give me a frequency and then it hit me... I NEVER CALLED FOR CLEARANCE! I never got an SFRA code!

Well, first thing I did was tune into 132.775 and I contacted the controller. He issued instructions to me as if I was a returning aircraft (from out of the SFRA to within the SFRA). I pointed out that that wasent the case.

I told him that I just departed gaithersburg, and that I am terribly sorry but I forgot to ask for clearance. I informed him that I will turn back to gaithersburg and I will remain in the air untill he tells me what he wants me to do.

At this point the controll told me to 360's to the northeast of KGAI. During the longest 15 minutes of my life I was mentally preparing myself for losing my certificate for 90 days and a scar on my record.

I then get called.

"Skyhawk 96747, Sqwauck 1234, proceed on course, remain clear of the Bravo"

I couldnt believe my own ears. I guess it pays to admit that you were wrong and take the heat for it. There was NO ONE at fault here besides myself.

While my case is different than that of the OP, that flight really brought home the idea that as a CFI I have the responsibilty for EVERYTHING that happens during a training flight regardless if the left seat is occupied by a student pilot or by an airline captain who is doing his BFR.

Ever since that occasion, I double check the transponder before each flight and I ask myself at three different times before take off if I got my code. After start up, at the run up and at the hold short before take off...

The SFRA is a ***** to deal with and I sure dont want to lose my ticket over it.

 

[Palmpilot]

I couldnt believe my own ears. I guess it pays to admit that you were wrong and take the heat for it. There was NO ONE at fault here besides myself.

I'm reminded of "The Four C's." From an AOPA article:

Remember the emergency "four Cs"? They are Climb, Communicate, Confess, and Comply. It's a surprisingly tough sell, particularly since we work hard to teach our students to stay within the federal aviation regulations, then advocate the four Cs for confessing they've done something wrong. Yes, admitting an FAR transgression might mean an FAA enforcement action, but that's a happier outcome than the alternative.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=4955

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ben, the other thing you did that may have made a difference is that you reported the problem before it became an ATC problem, IOW before it was brought up by ATC to you.

I've seen it in other contexts. For example, two different pilots under IFR are dealing with an emergency that results in an altitude deviation. The first report of a problem is:

• Pilot A calls ATC before separation is compromised to report inability to hold altitude.
• ATC calls Pilot B as separation is about to be compromised.

Which do you think is more likely to be looked at more closely by investigators?

 

[David Moeslein]

... and, in line with all that you have said and, in my opinion, rightly concluded is why I surrendered my certificate for 90 days effective July 29, 2009. I spoke with the attorney about the "probability issue" and didn't get a whole lot of warm fuzzies - especially given how things have turned out with him in charge BUT then, one thing that he said made it all perfectly clear! He said that, even if the case got heard by the Supreme Court I would still be violated but the 90-day suspension would be waived.

DUH! Now things got real easy: Don't have this 90-day suspension hanging over my head forever. Take the hit NOW (when aviation and the economy is at its worse and I'm already out of work due to the ARG/US discrimination) and by the end of October it will ALL be over! I'm not looking to fly for any airline or big company with an HR department that doesn't understand "aviation" so I think I can easily explain the "violation" to a living & breathing chief pilot.

 

[David Moeslein]

Nonetheless, AOPA was absolutely worthless in this - right in their own backyard. So, when the renewal materials arrived the other day, it wasn't hard to write CANCEL on them and send them back. Kind of made me sad since I've been a member for 20+ years but I saw in 1994 that they were basically a lip-service organization and that has remained the same.

I'm reminded of "The Four C's." From an AOPA article:



http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=4955

 

[David Moeslein]

LETTER TO THE FAA ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDERING MY CERTIFICATE:

[FONT=&quot]Dear Ms. Caron:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pursuant to the above-referenced Order and the subsequent FAA and NTSB proceedings that have occurred over the past five years, I am hereby surrendering my pilot certificate 2694486 for a period of ninety [90] days in accordance with CFR Title 14 § 61.19 (f) & (g). The surrender is strictly and solely in compliance with the foregoing but (for reasons outlined herein), in no way, is an acknowledgement or admission of guilt, nor does it waive any subsequent rights that I may have with respect to this Case in the future.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For the record, please be advised that I have always been a safe and conscientious pilot since first obtaining my private pilot certificate in 1987. I have accumulated 8,300+ flight hours over the past 22 years, earned my instructor certificates at the “Gold Seal” level, been an Aviation Safety Counselor in the Baltimore FSDO, spoken at aviation safety seminars, written several aviation-related articles, taught aviation at the college level, recommended 69 applicants for checkrides at all levels with a 93% first-time passing rate, flown under Part 91 and Part 135, taught under Part 61 and Part 141, co-owned & managed an FBO . . . and the list goes on as my reputation in aviation is exemplary.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since the flight for which I am being violated occurred [July 10, 2004 – five years ago], I have flown 1,000+ hours, obtained two type ratings, been to numerous semi-annual recurrent training sessions, taught under Part 135 and Part 142 in the G200 program with FlightSafety International, been designated as an FAA Check Airman for NetJets and I have even flown dignitaries such as then Senator Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Dick Cheney --- all of this without incident and with all regard for safety yet while being “under investigation” by the FAA. Finally, the ADIZ in which this flight occurred has been reconfigured and redefined such that the airspace in which this flight occurred no longer exists. Nonetheless, as this matter comes to a close, I will be penalized with a 90-day suspension.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is unfortunate that I never had the opportunity to describe the events surrounding the flight for which I am being violated. Due to the nature of the airspace involved [ADIZ around the Washington DC area] and the fact that I am a career commercial pilot, I was advised by both AOPA and the Baltimore FSDO to immediately seek legal counsel. An attorney well respected by AOPA and the FAA was recommended and I asked him to represent me. I filed a report under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program but that is the extent of the facts surrounding the flight being known; as you know, that information is made anonymous once the record is established. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Counsel elected to defend me on the basis of establishing who was pilot-in-command of the flight and ignoring any of the details surrounding the flight. Accordingly, while the FAA was prepared to discuss the flight and they had radar plots and testimony for their presentation, my attorney advised me not to acquire any recordings, plots, or other information that would be helpful in explaining the events that occurred that day. Further, he advised me not to attend any of the proceedings for fear that my presence and/or testimony would not support the defense that he was attempting to provide. To this day, I do not understand why he approached the defense in this manner but, as my attorney with great experience in matters of this kind, I had to trust that he was proceeding in the right direction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Reading the transcripts, Opinions, and Orders, I firmly believe that the defense presented on my behalf was viewed by the FAA, the NTSB, and the Court of Appeals as being nothing more than an arrogant legal maneuver with complete disregard for, or acknowledgement of, the issue of unauthorized ADIZ penetration on two separate occasions. With the exception of this letter, the file will never reflect that the person being violated for this offense was very familiar with the airspace and the operating requirements within it (having learned to fly there, and flown & taught there for 15+ years prior to the ADIZ, and currently was flying there). Further, the file will never reflect that there was familiarity with the airspace and that every effort was made to comply with the operating requirements of the ADIZ; that there was every belief and indication that the transponder was operating properly, and; that there was communication with ATC and FSS that would clearly indicate compliance. Counsel advised me not to obtain these records as they would only provide additional material for the FAA to violate me. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Specifically, no mention was made of NOTAM 4/5555 that would have applied to the outbound flight (departing the ADIZ in the most direct course upon becoming aware of an inability to comply . . .). For the inbound flight, a review of the radio recordings between Leesburg FSS and me, and Potomac Approach and me would have clearly established that (1) the original flight plan was dropped; (2) a new flight plan was filed; (3) contact with ATC was established and a transponder code was issued; (4) ATC was so busy that they could not positively identify the aircraft when a request was made to contact the tower at MTN. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nobody – except the ASRP – knows any of this! For this reason, the judge(s) could not understand how a pilot with great experience in this airspace could penetrate the ADIZ on two occasions as opposed to believing that it could be highly unlikely. Further, for this reason, they disallowed the waiver of sanction under the ASRP because they had nothing to support anything other than the unauthorized penetration was not inadvertent (a requirement for waiver of sanction). Should you make the request, I will provide you with a copy of the ASRP form that I submitted or, at a minimum, the textual description of the facts surrounding the flight that day. I think that you will be quite surprised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The impact and penalty during the past five years has already been borne. For five years, I have had the daily concern that, at any moment, I would have to explain to an employer that I am no longer able to fly for a period of ninety days. Moreover, I have been questioned and denied employment because a search of my records within the FAA shows “pending enforcement action” or, in more direct terms, guilty until proven innocent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, five years later, with a demonstrated record of nothing but safe airmanship, I will suffer a 90-day suspension and a period of violation will commence. I can not find the exact quote, but Judge Richard Roberts made a comment about some things in government getting “caught up in a groove” – this is what has happened here over the past five years. As a result, I find myself immediately unemployed and looking at a future career in aviation that is severely compromised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I thank you for the time that it has taken you to read this letter. Perhaps, even at this late date, there is something that can be done to remedy the imbalance that has occurred. I would welcome the opportunity to personally meet with somebody in Washington to discuss this situation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the interim, my certificate is surrendered and I will await the ninety days when it will be returned to me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,[/FONT]

 

[Palmpilot]

AOPA didn't invent "The Four C's."

 

[SkyHog]

LETTER TO THE FAA ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDERING MY CERTIFICATE:

[FONT=&quot]Dear Ms. Caron:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pursuant to the above-referenced Order and the subsequent FAA and NTSB proceedings that have occurred over the past five years, I am hereby surrendering my pilot certificate 2694486 for a period of ninety [90] days in accordance with CFR Title 14 § 61.19 (f) & (g). The surrender is strictly and solely in compliance with the foregoing but (for reasons outlined herein), in no way, is an acknowledgement or admission of guilt, nor does it waive any subsequent rights that I may have with respect to this Case in the future.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For the record, please be advised that I have always been a safe and conscientious pilot since first obtaining my private pilot certificate in 1987. I have accumulated 8,300+ flight hours over the past 22 years, earned my instructor certificates at the “Gold Seal” level, been an Aviation Safety Counselor in the Baltimore FSDO, spoken at aviation safety seminars, written several aviation-related articles, taught aviation at the college level, recommended 69 applicants for checkrides at all levels with a 93% first-time passing rate, flown under Part 91 and Part 135, taught under Part 61 and Part 141, co-owned & managed an FBO . . . and the list goes on as my reputation in aviation is exemplary.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since the flight for which I am being violated occurred [July 10, 2004 – five years ago], I have flown 1,000+ hours, obtained two type ratings, been to numerous semi-annual recurrent training sessions, taught under Part 135 and Part 142 in the G200 program with FlightSafety International, been designated as an FAA Check Airman for NetJets and I have even flown dignitaries such as then Senator Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Dick Cheney --- all of this without incident and with all regard for safety yet while being “under investigation” by the FAA. Finally, the ADIZ in which this flight occurred has been reconfigured and redefined such that the airspace in which this flight occurred no longer exists. Nonetheless, as this matter comes to a close, I will be penalized with a 90-day suspension.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is unfortunate that I never had the opportunity to describe the events surrounding the flight for which I am being violated. Due to the nature of the airspace involved [ADIZ around the Washington DC area] and the fact that I am a career commercial pilot, I was advised by both AOPA and the Baltimore FSDO to immediately seek legal counsel. An attorney well respected by AOPA and the FAA was recommended and I asked him to represent me. I filed a report under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program but that is the extent of the facts surrounding the flight being known; as you know, that information is made anonymous once the record is established. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Counsel elected to defend me on the basis of establishing who was pilot-in-command of the flight and ignoring any of the details surrounding the flight. Accordingly, while the FAA was prepared to discuss the flight and they had radar plots and testimony for their presentation, my attorney advised me not to acquire any recordings, plots, or other information that would be helpful in explaining the events that occurred that day. Further, he advised me not to attend any of the proceedings for fear that my presence and/or testimony would not support the defense that he was attempting to provide. To this day, I do not understand why he approached the defense in this manner but, as my attorney with great experience in matters of this kind, I had to trust that he was proceeding in the right direction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Reading the transcripts, Opinions, and Orders, I firmly believe that the defense presented on my behalf was viewed by the FAA, the NTSB, and the Court of Appeals as being nothing more than an arrogant legal maneuver with complete disregard for, or acknowledgement of, the issue of unauthorized ADIZ penetration on two separate occasions. With the exception of this letter, the file will never reflect that the person being violated for this offense was very familiar with the airspace and the operating requirements within it (having learned to fly there, and flown & taught there for 15+ years prior to the ADIZ, and currently was flying there). Further, the file will never reflect that there was familiarity with the airspace and that every effort was made to comply with the operating requirements of the ADIZ; that there was every belief and indication that the transponder was operating properly, and; that there was communication with ATC and FSS that would clearly indicate compliance. Counsel advised me not to obtain these records as they would only provide additional material for the FAA to violate me. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Specifically, no mention was made of NOTAM 4/5555 that would have applied to the outbound flight (departing the ADIZ in the most direct course upon becoming aware of an inability to comply . . .). For the inbound flight, a review of the radio recordings between Leesburg FSS and me, and Potomac Approach and me would have clearly established that (1) the original flight plan was dropped; (2) a new flight plan was filed; (3) contact with ATC was established and a transponder code was issued; (4) ATC was so busy that they could not positively identify the aircraft when a request was made to contact the tower at MTN. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nobody – except the ASRP – knows any of this! For this reason, the judge(s) could not understand how a pilot with great experience in this airspace could penetrate the ADIZ on two occasions as opposed to believing that it could be highly unlikely. Further, for this reason, they disallowed the waiver of sanction under the ASRP because they had nothing to support anything other than the unauthorized penetration was not inadvertent (a requirement for waiver of sanction). Should you make the request, I will provide you with a copy of the ASRP form that I submitted or, at a minimum, the textual description of the facts surrounding the flight that day. I think that you will be quite surprised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The impact and penalty during the past five years has already been borne. For five years, I have had the daily concern that, at any moment, I would have to explain to an employer that I am no longer able to fly for a period of ninety days. Moreover, I have been questioned and denied employment because a search of my records within the FAA shows “pending enforcement action” or, in more direct terms, guilty until proven innocent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, five years later, with a demonstrated record of nothing but safe airmanship, I will suffer a 90-day suspension and a period of violation will commence. I can not find the exact quote, but Judge Richard Roberts made a comment about some things in government getting “caught up in a groove” – this is what has happened here over the past five years. As a result, I find myself immediately unemployed and looking at a future career in aviation that is severely compromised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I thank you for the time that it has taken you to read this letter. Perhaps, even at this late date, there is something that can be done to remedy the imbalance that has occurred. I would welcome the opportunity to personally meet with somebody in Washington to discuss this situation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the interim, my certificate is surrendered and I will await the ninety days when it will be returned to me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,[/FONT]

That almost made me cry.

With that said, it is days like this that I realize that the terrorists really have won. What have they done to our country?

 

[tdager]

My only problem is does the infraction warrant the punishment?

Seriously...if I had my ticket pulled for 90 days I would be grumpy but could live with it.

If my LIVELIHOOD depended on my ticket, 90 days would have be filing for bankruptcy.

 

[poadeleted20]

My only problem is does the infraction warrant the punishment?

The second-highest court in the land doesn't seem to think the matter is worth further judicial review.

If my LIVELIHOOD depended on my ticket, 90 days would have be filing for bankruptcy.

As a matter of law, a pilot's dependence on his/her pilot certificate to make a living is not an issue when considering a suspension or revocation, and there are numerous cases on point, starting with Pastrana v. US, et al., 746 F 2d 1447 (1984).

 

[steingar]

The rules are stupid and punishments even more so. Good example, if someone makes a mistake, is keeping them out of the cockpit for 90 days really going to improve their abilities?

 

[ClimbnSink]

The rules are stupid and punishments even more so. Good example, if someone makes a mistake, is keeping them out of the cockpit for 90 days really going to improve their abilities?

The rules are stupid. Follow them all or ignore them all. Regardless the OP was trying to follow the rules but made an honest mistake then dodged responsibility for half a decade or so.
90 days suspension may or may not improve ones piloting but I bet the guys that screw up. Own up to it right away then take whatever they get, improve their piloting. People running the system know this and treat people accordingly.

 

[PittsDriver]

I've been flying in and out of this airspace on a continuous basis since it went in to effect and through all it's various and usually draconian implementations. It's a senseless and ineffectual manifestation of bureaucracy gone amok. I know of several pilots that have been violated for something as simple as inadvertently squawking 1200 for 20 seconds before they landed. In nearly every case they were threatened with a 90 day suspension and then offered a deal that if they'd settle without a fight, it would be reduced to 18 days. I know one such individual that ended up getting two of these 18 day hiatus periods from our friends at the FAA. I'm also familiar with one case in which an aircraft was flown around for 20 minutes inside the ADIZ with no squawk and after being given the number to call, was let off with no further action.

The second-highest court in the land doesn't seem to think the matter is worth further judicial review.

This remark doesn't remotely suggest that justice was served in this particular case. Only that no political will exists to do the right thing.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know of several pilots that have been violated for something as simple as inadvertently squawking 1200 for 20 seconds before they landed.

I'd buy "mistakenly," but not "inadvertently." Other than hitting a bump when reaching for the IDENT button and hitting the VFR button accidently (in which case it takes only about a second to punch it off by hitting the VFR button again), I do not see how one can "inadvertently" squawk 1200 since it takes a positive act to change to 1200 -- including the twirling of four knobs in most legacy transponders.

This remark doesn't remotely suggest that justice was served in this particular case. Only that no political will exists to do the right thing.

Are you suggesting that the USCA's refusal to review Mr. Moeslein's case was politically motivated? That hardly seems likely.

 

[gprellwitz]

Other than hitting a bump when reaching for the IDENT button and hitting the VFR button accidently (in which case it takes only about a second to punch it off by hitting the VFR button again),

Factual question here.

Does the VFR button act as a toggle on the transponder, so it will return to the previously entered squawk code if pressed a second time? I've never tried that, and kind of presumed that it would always just change to the programmed VFR code.

 

[ScottM]

Factual question here.

Does the VFR button act as a toggle on the transponder, so it will return to the previously entered squawk code if pressed a second time? I've never tried that, and kind of presumed that it would always just change to the programmed VFR code.

I seem to recall that you hit it and it enters 1200, hit it again and it re-enters 1200. Press and hold the VFR button for several seconds and THEN it goes back to the last code. But it has been a few years and this would be on a King KT-76C.

 

[gprellwitz]

I seem to recall that you hit it and it enters 1200, hit it again and it re-enters 1200. Press and hold the VFR button for several seconds and THEN it goes back to the last code. But it has been a few years and this would be on a King KT-76C.

Thanks. Time to pull out the supplement and look it up!

 

[ScottM]

Thanks. Time to pull out the supplement and look it up!

I did. 2 second push to get it to toggle.

http://lig.nywg.cap.gov/flight/documents/KT76C Pilot Guide.pdf

VFR Button
Momentarily pressing the VFR button
will enter a pre-programmed VFR
code, typically 1200, in the code window.
Pressing and holding the VFR
button for two seconds will cause the
last active code to be displayed.

 

[Henning]

The rules are stupid and punishments even more so. Good example, if someone makes a mistake, is keeping them out of the cockpit for 90 days really going to improve their abilities?

No, and many people escape punitive actions and are given remedial education & a 709 ride. Punitive actions were accorded here because of how the case was handled. The judge never had a chance to determine that the happenings were inadvertant, there was no evidence of that presented to him. What is a Judge to do in an administrative action when there is nothing presented to him that allows him to consider the mitigating factors. The system itself works ok, if you don't like the ADIZ and SFRA, that's not an administrative action, you have to take that up with The People and the politicians, and I'm here to tell you, they do not have a sympathetic ear to your case against having to meet some rules to fly in a certain area.

 

[gprellwitz]

I did. 2 second push to get it to toggle.

http://lig.nywg.cap.gov/flight/documents/KT76C Pilot Guide.pdf

Thanks! I learned something, even in this thread!

 

[LT4247]

Damn, Henning! Don't hold anything back now.....
You remind me of me.

Quit being a whiny ***** and own your mistake. You screwed up on so many levels in this, I question your competency to command an aircraft, and you're still making excuses!

 

[David Moeslein]

INADVERTENT[LY] - This is a very interesting word when it pertains to this case and to the application of the waiver of sanction provided under the Aviation safety Reporting Program.

As we all chugged along doing our flight training, at some early point in our career we were told about the "NASA Form" and how we should timely file one any time we think we did something wrong or are accused of doing something wrong. A good read of the program's rules and/or maybe a good instructor would point out to us that it wouldn't prevent us from being violated but it would prevent us from being "punished" ---- and that was the extent of it. We probably also read and ignored the other conditions that apply - such as whether there was criminal intent - and, because it was probably an error of some sort, whether the action was "inadvertent and not deliberate" was never an issue.

THINK AGAIN! This whole concept of "inadvertent" is very interesting as the FAA takes an approach much different from the common dictionary definition of "inadvertent" which is: Not duly attentive - marked by unintentional lack of care (American Heritage @ 2009). You'd think they would come up with an aviation-related example but they use the "coffee cup" example: In Administrator v. Ferguson they said that, "... an inadvertent act is one that is not the result of a
purposeful choice. Thus, a person who turns suddenly and spills a cup of coffee has acted inadvertently. On the other hand, a person who places a coffee cup precariously on the edge of a table has engaged in purposeful behavior.
Even though the person may not deliberately intend the coffee to spill, the conduct is not inadvertent because it involves a purposeful choice between two acts - placing the cup on the edge of the table or balancing it so that it will not spill."

So - I keep scratching my head and wondering how it could possibly be that I wake up in the morning, with every intention to fly from an airport where I have flown and instructed for 17 years, where I am currently based with a large corporate flight department, and I purposely set out to violate the ADIZ on two occasions in one flight!

Truly, I don't see how I could "inadvertently" fly into the ADIZ, but I certainly don't see how I could ADVERTENTLY (or intentionally) fly into it --- but given no defense, how else could they rule?

I'd buy "mistakenly," but not "inadvertently." Other than hitting a bump when reaching for the IDENT button and hitting the VFR button accidently (in which case it takes only about a second to punch it off by hitting the VFR button again), I do not see how one can "inadvertently" squawk 1200 since it takes a positive act to change to 1200 -- including the twirling of four knobs in most legacy transponders.
Are you suggesting that the USCA's refusal to review Mr. Moeslein's case was politically motivated? That hardly seems likely.

 

[David Moeslein]

Mr. Henning . . . of all that you've said about this to infuriate me, I must admit that THIS last statement of yours is absolutely correct! It is for that reason that I am not really upset with the FAA. Yes, I am upset with the amount of time and money they spend on pursuing it -- but what else could they do? It is an unfortunate system that kept it in a "legal context" when a simple sit down across the table would have resolved everything. Then again, this was the purpose of the Informal Hearing and my attorney directed me NOT to attend (that's why I wasn't there). I didn't like this one bit but when your career is on the line, you go with those who [should] know what they are doing. Hindsight is always 20/20.

No, and many people escape punitive actions and are given remedial education & a 709 ride. Punitive actions were accorded here because of how the case was handled. The judge never had a chance to determine that the happenings were inadvertant, there was no evidence of that presented to him. What is a Judge to do in an administrative action when there is nothing presented to him that allows him to consider the mitigating factors. The system itself works ok, if you don't like the ADIZ and SFRA, that's not an administrative action, you have to take that up with The People and the politicians, and I'm here to tell you, they do not have a sympathetic ear to your case against having to meet some rules to fly in a certain area.

 

[poadeleted20]

Truly, I don't see how I could "inadvertently" fly into the ADIZ, but I certainly don't see how I could ADVERTENTLY (or intentionally) fly into it --- but given no defense, how else could they rule?

As I think the FAA sees it, "inadvertently" is not the same as "mistakenly." Thus, if one squawks 1200 in the SFRA because one was aiming for the IDENT button on a Garmin GTX327/330 just as a gust hit the plane and one's finger hit the VFR button instead, that would be "inadvertent." OTOH, if one squawks 1200 in the SFRA because one mistakenly punched 1200 into the box before takeoff, that would not be "inadvertent," even if it was never one's intent to violate that rule.

As for flying into the SFRA, I agree with you -- one could indeed do that mistakenly, but never "inadvertently," since you must have been intending to fly the plane somewhere, and only by mistake entered the SFRA.

Well, almost never. I suppose that if your brakes and throttle failed simultaneously in the runup area and your plane launched itself into the air, that might be an "inadvertent" violation.

 

[jesse]

Well, almost never. I suppose that if your brakes and throttle failed simultaneously in the runup area and your plane launched itself into the air, that might be an "inadvertent" violation.

...and mixture lever..and mag switch..and fuel cut-off. That'd be a rough day.

 

[steingar]

As I think the FAA sees it, "inadvertently" is not the same as "mistakenly." Thus, if one squawks 1200 in the SFRA because one was aiming for the IDENT button on a Garmin GTX327/330 just as a gust hit the plane and one's finger hit the VFR button instead, that would be "inadvertent." OTOH, if one squawks 1200 in the SFRA because one mistakenly punched 1200 into the box before takeoff, that would not be "inadvertent," even if it was never one's intent to violate that rule.

As for flying into the SFRA, I agree with you -- one could indeed do that mistakenly, but never "inadvertently," since you must have been intending to fly the plane somewhere, and only by mistake entered the SFRA.

Well, almost never. I suppose that if your brakes and throttle failed simultaneously in the runup area and your plane launched itself into the air, that might be an "inadvertent" violation.

By your logic no one who gets violated in the DC alphabet soup security NOTAM could use the NASA reporting system.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, almost never. I suppose that if your brakes and throttle failed simultaneously in the runup area and your plane launched itself into the air, that might be an "inadvertent" violation.

Actually, I don't think that would be a violation at all.

 

[poadeleted20]

By your logic no one who gets violated in the DC alphabet soup security NOTAM could use the NASA reporting system.

Not by my logic -- by the FAA's logic. And that seems to be the way it's going.

 

[EdFred]

I just want to know why some people so blindly defend the FAA and the SFRA.

 

[Ted]

I just want to know why some people so blindly defend the FAA and the SFRA.

 

[vontresc]

Wow the first Hitler/Nazi reference in this thread....

I guess the Godwin point of this thread was 155 posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[tonycondon]

lol ted!

 

[TMetzinger]

By your logic no one who gets violated in the DC alphabet soup security NOTAM could use the NASA reporting system.

That's unfortunately pretty close to the truth. The FAA is NOT the force behind this. They got specific marching orders to investigate every reported ADIZ/SFRA/FRZ violation, and the suspension times were negotiated between the FAA and the DHS agencies really driving the train. 90 days is what the FAA bargained DOWN to. I've heard the original proposition was revocation for an FRZ bust and a one year suspension for an ADIZ bust.

The whole thing is a classic example of "act in haste, repent in leisure". It will take time and constant effort for us to inch the security/freedom balance back close to where it used to be.

At this point, the rules are out, mandatory training is published, and there's (in the eyes of the FoD) no possibility of an inadvertent violation of the SFRA. Thus, no ASRS "avoid the penalty" applies.

 

[poadeleted20]

I just want to know why some people so blindly defend the FAA and the SFRA.

When you find someone who "blindly defend the FAA and the SFRA," let me know. Until then, don't blame the folks who try to explain the situation as it is so you can avoid getting hammered like Dave Moeslein did.

 

[steingar]

Actually Ron, you've been pretty blindly defending them and slamming David, to the point of telling me I had some sort of agenda because I pointed out you didn't know everything you claimed to.